| Literature DB >> 32771696 |
Joseph J Bass1, Asif Nakhuda1, Colleen S Deane2, Matthew S Brook1, Daniel J Wilkinson1, Bethan E Phillips1, Andrew Philp3, Janelle Tarum4, Fawzi Kadi4, Ditte Andersen5, Amadeo Muñoz Garcia6, Ken Smith1, Iain J Gallagher7, Nathaniel J Szewczyk1, Mark E Cleasby5, Philip J Atherton8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Vitamin D receptor (VDR) has been positively associated with skeletal muscle mass, function and regeneration. Mechanistic studies have focused on the loss of the receptor, with in vivo whole-body knockout models demonstrating reduced myofibre size and function and impaired muscle development. To understand the mechanistic role upregulation of the VDR elicits in muscle mass/health, we studied the impact of VDR over-expression (OE) in vivo before exploring the importance of VDR expression upon muscle hypertrophy in humans.Entities:
Keywords: Exercise; Metabolism; Skeletal muscle; Vitamin D
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32771696 PMCID: PMC7475200 DOI: 10.1016/j.molmet.2020.101059
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mol Metab ISSN: 2212-8778 Impact factor: 7.422
Figure 1(A) Schematic design of in vivo paired contralateral experiments. (B) Confirmation of contralateral VDR-OE by qRT-PCR (n = 7). (C) Representative western blot and quantification of VDR-OE (=7n). (D) Representative images of muscle fibres stained for dystrophin (green), DAPI (blue) and VDR (red). Scale bars represent 200 μm. Data are mean ± SEM. Significance indicated measured by paired t-test. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Figure 2(A) All fibre CSA analysis, (B) Type IIa and (C) IIb fibre CSA distribution. Three random fields of view were measured per section in both L and R TA muscles in each animal (n = 7), with CSA measured for all intact fibres. (D) Alkaline soluble protein measures, (E) RNA and (F) DNA quantification per mg of dried muscle (n = 7). (G) Glucose uptake measured by 3H—2-deoxyglucose tracer uptake (n = 9). (H) Muscle glycogen content (n = 5). Data are mean ± SEM. Significance by paired t-test.
Figure 3(A) Measurement of MPS rates of mixed lysate, sarcoplasmic, myofibrillar, mitochondrial and collagen protein subfractions by D2O incorporation (n = 7). (B) Representative western blots and quantification of phosphorylated and total protein anabolic signalling intermediates (n = 7). CBB, Coomassie Brillian Blue. (C) Representative images of mTOR and LAMP2 co-localisation. (D) Quantification of mTOR and LAMP2 co-localisation (n = 7). Data are mean ± SEM. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01 between indicated groups. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Figure 4qRT-PCR measurement of (A) ribosomal and (B) proteolytic related gene expression (n = 7). Data are mean ± SEM. ∗p < 0.05 between indicated groups.
Figure 5VDR-OE upregulates hypertrophy and extracellular remodelling related gene-sets. (A) Volcano plot of p < 0.05 statistically significant up-/downregulated genes. (B) Top five upregulated and downregulated gene-sets from the molecular signatures database in VDR-OE muscles (n = 7). See also Supplemental File 1.
Figure 6(A) Representative image of muscle fibres stained for Pax7 (Black), Laminin (Green) and IIa fibres (Yellow). Arrows signify Pax7+ nuclei of satellite cells and subsequent quantification (B). (C) qRT-PCR measurement for markers of proliferation and MRFs (n = 7). (D) RNA-Seq pathway analysis of Rattus norvegicus cell cycle gene expression. Log fold changes are shown as a gradient from red (upregulated) to blue (downregulated). P-values <0.05 are displayed as green. Scale bars represent 200 μm. Data are mean ± SEM. ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01 between indicated groups. (For interpretation of the references to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)
Figure 7VDR expression in humans correlated with increases in lean mass from RET. (A) % Δ 1-RM vs. % Δ Vdr (n = 37). (B) % Δ Lean mass vs. % Δ Vdr (n = 37). (C) VDR expression in quartile groups of changes in lean mass. (D) % Δ 1-RM vs. Δ Plasma Vitamin D (n = 37). (E) % Δ Lean mass vs. Δ Plasma Vitamin D (VitD) (n = 37). (F) % Δ Cyp27b1 vs. % Δ Vdr (n = 37). (G) % Δ Cyp24a1 vs. % Δ Vdr (n = 37). (H) Post training HOMA-IR vs. Δ Plasma VitD (n = 37). (H) Post training HOMA-IR vs. % Δ Vdr (n = 37). (J) Representation of VitD metabolism. All % Δ changes are between pre- and post-training. Column data are mean ± SEM. ∗p < 0.05 between indicated groups.