Protein fractional synthesis rates within tissues of high- and low-active mice.

With the rise in physical inactivity and its related diseases, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms involved in physical activity regulation. Biological factors regulating physical activity are studied to establish a possible target for improving the physical activity level. However, little is known about the role metabolism plays in physical activity regulation. Therefore, we studied protein fractional synthesis rate (FSR) of multiple organ tissues of 12-week-old male mice that were previously established as inherently low-active (n = 15, C3H/HeJ strain) and high-active (n = 15, C57L/J strain). Total body water of each mouse was enriched to 5% deuterium oxide (D2O) via intraperitoneal injection and maintained with D2O enriched drinking water for about 24 h. Blood samples from the jugular vein and tissues (kidney, heart, lung, muscle, fat, jejunum, ileum, liver, brain, skin, and bone) were collected for enrichment analysis of alanine by LC-MS/MS. Protein FSR was calculated as -ln(1-enrichment). Data are mean±SE as fraction/day (unpaired t-test). Kidney protein FSR in the low-active mice was 7.82% higher than in high-active mice (low-active: 0.1863±0.0018, high-active: 0.1754±0.0028, p = 0.0030). No differences were found in any of the other measured organ tissues. However, all tissues resulted in a generally higher protein FSR in the low-activity mice compared to the high-activity mice (e.g. lung LA: 0.0711±0.0015, HA: 0.0643±0.0020, heart LA: 0.0649± 0.0013 HA: 0.0712±0.0073). Our observations suggest that high-active mice in most organ tissues are no more inherently equipped for metabolic adaptation than low-active mice, but there may be a connection between protein metabolism of kidney tissue and physical activity level. In addition, low-active mice have higher organ-specific baseline protein FSR possibly contributing to the inability to achieve higher physical activity levels.

Introduction

It has been shown repeatedly that physical activity level has both genetic and biological regulating factors [1]. Previously, it has been demonstrated that inherently high-active mice (C57L/J), when compared to an inherently low-active mouse strain, (C3H/HeJ) have overexpression of proteins associated with metabolism in the nucleus accumbens of the brain [2] and in skeletal muscle [3]. The observed overexpression and inferred upregulated metabolism of these proteins support the hypothesis that the capacity to increase protein synthesis in specific organs may be related to the physical activity level of an organism. Therefore, in search of what drives an organism to be more active, we hypothesized that there are differences in tissue protein synthesis between animals displaying differing physical activity levels.

Protein synthesis is commonly measured by calculating the protein fractional synthesis rate (FSR), which is defined as the rate that labeled amino acid precursor is incorporated into protein. Protein FSR gives insight into metabolic regulation because the ability to create proteins faster represents the capability to adapt quicker by upregulation or downregulation of processes controlled by protein concentrations. For instance, the intestines have a high protein FSR [4] which allows for the intestinal system to quickly react to stimuli or environmental changes.

A generally accepted method of measuring protein FSR is the administration of heavy water (D2O) to create labeled amino acids [5]. This method has been used to measure tissue-specific protein FSR of skeletal muscle [6], heart, and liver [7]. While other organ tissues have been analyzed for protein FSR utilizing other stable isotope methods (i.e. primed continuous intravenous infusions with L-[ring-13C6]-Phenylalanine) [8], in the present study, we utilized D2O to measure protein FSR in several organ tissues simultaneously as a multi-organ approach to examine the association between protein metabolism and physical activity level. Therefore, we measured protein FSR of inherently high- and low-active inbred mouse strains (C57L/J and C3H/HeJ, respectively) [3, 9–11].

Methods

Animals

All procedures were approved by the Texas A&M University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC; AUP # 2015–0159). We analyzed samples from 15 male C3H/HeJ mice (inherently low-active inbred strain) and 15 male C57L/J mice (inherently high-active inbred strain), purchased from The Jackson Laboratory (Bar Harbor, ME, USA). Average physical activity levels of these two mouse strains have previously been described [12]. In previous studies, we observed that low-active mice and high-active mice have daily wheel running on average of 0.6 ± 1.1 km/day and 9.5 ± 2.0 km/day (mean±SD), respectively [12]. This physical activity level is shown to be highly reproducible [13]. We used C57Bl6/J mice (n = 5), to estimate tracer background enrichments. All mice were obtained at 10-weeks of age and group-housed in standard mouse-cages in a light and temperature-controlled housing facility (12-hour light-dark cycle, room temperature 22–24°C) with ad libitum water and a standard chow diet (Harlan Labs, Houston TX; 25.2% protein, 4.0% fat, 39.5% carbohydrate, 3.3% crude fiber, 10% neutral fiber, and 9.9% ash). Food consumption was measured daily by measuring unconsumed food weights. The food intake responses between high and low active mice has been shown previously [11]. During the two-week acclimation period, mice were not exposed to wheel-running activity because we previously showed that multiple day exposure to running wheels can result in gene expression changes and potential alteration of protein FSR and protein expression [10]. By studying the mice strains without the physical activity stimulus of running wheel activity, we are able to analyze potential differences in protein metabolism that may be driving activity level while preventing the potential confounding of the protein FSR/protein expression responses by physical activity exposure.

Study protocol

D2O administration

After the acclimation period, we performed the protein FSR assessment procedures via a terminal surgery. The day before tissue collection, the mice were given an intraperitoneal injection of a pre-calculated amount of D2O (365uL/10g of body weight) to raise body water enrichment to a level of 5%. The D2O will enrich the amino acid alanine for calculation of the protein FSR at a sufficient precision in all the organs of interest [14, 15] and is sufficient to achieve a measurable amount of labeled alanine in the tissues with the lowest and the highest predicted protein FSR. After the D2O injection, the mice were given the same percentage of D2O in their drinking water to maintain steady-state D2O enrichment for ~24 hours until the start of the surgical procedure. The timeline of the study is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1

Timeline of study.

Body composition

Four hours before initiation of the terminal surgical procedure, food was removed from mouse cages to study the animals in the post-absorptive condition. Body weight (bw) was assessed immediately after food withdrawal using a digital beam scale. Lean body mass, and fat masswere measured using echo MRI (EchoMRI LLC, Houston, TX 77079). Total body water was estimated by calculating 74% of body weight [16].

Anaesthesia

With the goal of this study to answer what regulates physical activity level, we analyzed multiple aspects of metabolism. This study specifically reports our findings of protein FSR while findings regarding plasma amino acid kinetics obtained by the administration of stable isotope tracers are reported in Granados et. al. [17]. Due to the additional measurements, surgery was necessary and blood samples were taken along the timeline of the greater study. We anaesthetized the mice with a mixture of ketamine (1.25 mg/10g BW) and medetomidine (2 μg/10g BW) via intraperitoneal injection (0.1 ml/10g bw) [18] and maintained anaesthesia using a continuous subcutaneous pump infusion of ketamine (0.35 mg/ 10 g BW/h) and medetomidine (0.35 μg/10g BW/h) at a rate of 0.1 ml/10 g BW/h [18]. Under anaesthesia, a peripheral catheter was placed in the right jugular vein for blood sampling. We maintained the fluid balance and blood pressure by an initial 1.5 ml IP saline injection (0.9% sterile, NaCl), and by continuous subcutaneous pump infusion (Harvard PHD2000) of normal saline at a rate of 2.5 ml/hour [18]. Breathing was continuously monitored and body temperature was maintained at 37°C using a heating pad and lamp.

Tissue collection and processing

Blood samples (0.05–0.1 ml per sample) were collected on two sampling time schedules (schedule 1: t = 3 and 30 minutes; schedule 2: t = 5 and 40 minutes) as previously described [17]. Blood samples were replaced with an equal volume of sterile normal saline. We collected blood in lithium-heparinized tubes (microtube; Sarstedt, Newton, NC) and immediately placed them on ice (4°C) then centrifuged (4 °C, 3120 x g for 5 min) the samples to obtain plasma within the hour. The plasma was deproteinized with 0.1 vol of 33% (w/w) trichloroacetic acid and stored at −80 °C for later analysis.

Eleven tissues were collected from each mouse in the following order: skeletal muscle, fat (peri-testicular), jejunum, ileum, liver, kidney, lung, heart, brain, skin (ear), and bone (skull). Each tissue was quickly freeze clamped, snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen, and stored in -80°C. Before analysis, the tissue homogenizing and processing was done as described [4]. In brief, the homogenized tissue powder (30–80 mg) was centrifuged to separate the supernatant, which was used for intracellular amino acid concentration measurements, and the protein pellet. The pellet was washed three times with 0.3M TCA and hydrolyzed with 1 mL of 6 N HCl at 110°C for 24 h. 5 mL of water was added.

Alanine enrichment analysis

Plasma

Plasma samples were chemically derivatized before liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) by a modification for small plasma volumes of a method previously described [17, 19]. In brief, deproteinized plasma supernatant was reacted at room temperature for 15 min in a mixture of 3 vol of 1 M sodium phosphate, pH 10, and 6 vol of a 5% (w/v) solution in acetonitrile of 9-fluorenylmethoxycarbonyl (Fmoc) chloride (Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis MO, USA). Reactions were stopped by adding 3 vol of 1.3 M acetic acid in 8% acetonitrile. A 1.3 μL sample was metered into a 24 μL/min eluent flow (Eksigent, a part of SCIEX, Foster City CA, USA) thus onto a 0.5 x 100 mm LC column packed with 2.7 μm Halo® C18 beads (Advanced Materials Technology, Wilmington DE, USA). Fmoc derivatized alanine and heavy (mass+1) alanine eluted after 45 s as acetonitrile increased from 26.5% to 38.5% (v/v), displacing 11.6 μM ammonium acetate and 3.9% 2-propanol. Detection was by Turbo-V electrospray MS/MS on a 5500 QTRAP system (SCIEX), monitoring m/z 310 > 88 and m/z 311 > 89 at collision energies (CE) -68 V and -29 V for the natural and mass+1 alanine, respectively. Collision energy (CE) was optimized in the alanine mass+1 MS/MS channel, but deoptimized for alanine M0 itself. This allowed more samples to be injected for better precision while measuring low-level mass+1 alanine species while avoiding saturation of the ion-counting detector by the much more abundant alanine species. As the same "detuning" was applied for external-standard calibration samples, the modeled calibration line removes the detuning factor.

Tissue intracellular fluid

The intracellular fluid portion of the tissue homogenate was Fmoc-reacted and chromatographed in the standard manner for plasma [19], except the concentration of acetonitrile in the reaction stop solution was decreased from 8% to 4% and the volume injected for LC was reduced to 75 nL. The 310 > 88 and m/z 311 > 89 channels were monitored as above, except at CE -60 V and -29 V, respectively.

Tissue protein

The protein-bound portion of the tissue homogenate, the diluted acid hydrolyzate, was Fmoc-reacted and chromatographed as for plasma [19], except the reaction borate buffer was made more basic by adding 4.286 mL of 6M NaOH per 50 mL. The reaction stop solution was composed of 12 mL of acetonitrile and 5.72 mL of glacial acetic acid adjusted to 100 mL with water. 125 nL were injected and collision energies were set at -68 V and -29 V, respectively.

Calibration of alanine enrichment

An isotope response ratio was calculated for every injected sample by dividing the peak area measured in the alanine (mass+1) channel by that of alanine. From the response ratio was calculated the alanine enrichment by using a calibrated reference standard consisting of a pool of biosamples containing mass+1 alanine. Reference standard was reacted in several vials spaced among the biosamples and injected onto the LC column to control for experimental drift. In a preliminary experiment, the reference standard was calibrated against a set of enrichment standards, solutions in 0.1 M hydrochloric acid of a physiological concentration of alanine and increasing, small concentrations of alanine(mass+1) to give known enrichments 0.00086, 0.00432, 0.00865, 0.0432, 0.0865, 0.0173, and 0.432.

Calculations

We have learned from other studies that the alanine enrichments from water labelling are an inconsistent measurement as the enrichment ratio between alanine and D2O can range from 3.7 [20, 21] to 4.0 [22]. For this reason, we chose to analyze the true precursor of the incorporation into protein alanine rather than an indirect measurement. By calculating the tracer-to-tracee ratio (TTR), we are able to report a more accurate enrichment in the precursor pool. We calculated the labeled to unlabeled ratio (tracer-tracee ratio = TTR = enrichment) of alanine of each organ tissue and corrected the value with the natural abundance of the tracer, measured in tissues of C57Bl6/J mice that were not given D2O. Using the corrected TTR, we calculated protein FSR using Eq (1) where f is calculated as protein-bound alanine (pbALA) TTR divided by the precursor pool alanine TTR [15, 23, 24]. f will be between 0 and 1. The precursor pool can be measured in either the intracellular fraction of the tissue or in plasma, assuming that the plasma alanine (plaALA) TTR is the overall mean of the precursor TTR as all pools will be labeled from the D2O at the same enrichment [25]. The amount of time (t) is the duration between the bolus administration of D2O and the collection of tissue.

Statistical analysis

Results are expressed as mean [95% confidence interval]. GraphPad Prism (Version 8.3.1) was used for data analysis. If data failed normality using Graphpad Prism’s normality tests, they were log-transformed before statistical tests were performed and rechecked for normal distribution. Unpaired t-tests were used to determine significant differences of the characteristics between the high and low active mice, the protein FSR of each organ, and the difference in tissue protein FSR between the high-active and low-active mice groups with the level of significance alpha set a priori at < 0.05. The p-values from the t-test were analyzed using false discovery rate (FDR) approach controlled with Q = 0.05 and set to use the two-stage linear step-up procedure of Benjamini, Krieger, and Yekutieli [26]. FDR adjusts the p-values to recognize if the significance is a true discovery (q < 0.05). The reported coefficient of variation is an output of Prism calculated as the standard deviation divided by the mean, expressed in percentage. All mean differences are calculated as the percentage of 1 minus the ratio of the two means.

Results

Animal characteristics

We analyzed a total of 30 male mice (15 low-active, and 15 high-active) at 12 weeks of age (Table 1). The high-active mice were characterized by 7.0% higher total body weight (p<0.0001) with a 7.6% higher lean mass (p<0.0001); however, we found no differences in total fat mass (p = 0.3868) or average daily food consumption (p = 0.5552). In addition, the high-active mice had 7.0% higher total-body water.

Table 1

Characteristics of mice.

Characteristic	High-active mice (n = 15)	Low-active Mice (n = 15)	p-value
Bodyweight (g)	26.98 [26.52, 27.44]	25.22 [24.56, 25.88]	<0.0001*
Lean Mass (g)	21.91 [21.50, 22.31]	20.36 [19.95, 20.77]	<0.0001*
Fat Mass (g)	2.37 [2.04, 2.71]	2.33 [2.03, 2.63]	0.3868
Avg. Daily Food Consumption (g)	3.17 [2.75, 3.59]	3.39 [2.72, 4.06]	0.5552
Total-body water estimate (g)	20.15 [19.81, 20.50]	18.84 [18.35, 19.33]	<0.0001*

Note: unpaired t-test, Data are expressed as mean [95% CI] in grams

*significance (p<0.05)

Plasma vs. Intracellular alanine TTR for calculating fractional synthesis rates

Preliminary to calculating protein FSR, the precursor pool was determined since either plasma or intracellular alanine TTR values can be used to calculate protein FSR. We measured alanine TTR within plasma at various blood sampling time points: 3 minutes and 30 minutes, or 5 minutes and 40 minutes. Since the values of alanine TTR at the early compared to the later time points are not statistically different (3 min: 0.1962 [0.1876, 0.2049] versus 30 min: 0.1964 [0.1876, 0.2051] p = 0.8181, and 5 min: 0.2044 [0.2014, 0.2075] versus 40 min: 0.2054 [0.2023, 0.2085] p = 0.6741), the plasma is a stable measurement to use as the precursor pool for protein FSR calculations. Also the calculated coefficient of variation showed low variability change between the initial time points (3 min: 8.46%, 5 min: 2.53%) and later time points (30 min: 7.82%, 40 min: 2.40%). Alanine TTR within the intracellular fraction of tissue (icALA TTR) resulted in more variability when compared to the plasma alanine (plaALA) TTR as shown by the coefficient of variation (Table 2). In addition, when using the plaALA TTR or icALA TTR as the precursor pool to calculate protein FSR, we observed more variability in the protein FSR calculated with icALA TTR in each organ (Table 3). The coefficients of variation were two-fold higher in some tissues when using icALA TTR to calculate the protein FSR. Also, the protein FSRs calculated with icALA TTR were significantly higher than when calculated with plaALA TTR in most tissues (Table 3). Since the icALA TTR were more variable than the plaALA TTR, we, therefore, decided to use the plaALA TTR as the precursor pool to calculate protein FSR.

Table 2

Comparison of the precursor pools used to calculate FSR for all mice combined.

	Alanine TTR (n = 30)	Coefficient of Variation (%)
PlaALA TTR
Plasma	0.2013 [0.1968, 0.2058]	5.96%
Tissue icALA TTR
Kidney	0.1599 [0.1461, 0.1738]	22.72%
Heart	0.1720 [0.1664, 0.1776]	7.89%
Fat	0.1914 [0.1871, 0.1957]	5.59%
Lung	0.1722 [0.1624, 0.1819]	14.85%
Jejunum	0.1698 [0.1587, 0.1809]	17.19%
Ileum	0.1878 [0.1660, 0.2095]	30.51%
Muscle	0.2008 [0.1959, 0.2058]	6.38%
Brain	0.1762 [0.1723, 0.1800]	5.63%
Liver	0.1750 [0.1613, 0.1888]	20.64%
Bone	0.1712 [0.1639, 0.1785]	9.84%
Skin	0.1434 [0.1373, 0.1495]	9.38%

Note: Plasma alanine (plaALA) TTR is the mean of each mouse’s average plaALA TTR. Alanine TTR reported for each tissue is the intracellular alanine TTR (icALA TTR). Data are expressed as mean [95% CI]. n = 30 for plasma and tissues.

Table 3

Protein-bound alanine (pbALA) TTR and comparison of protein FSR calculated with plasma or intracellular precursor pools for all mice combined.

Tissue	pbALA TTR	FSR (plasma)	FSR (intracellular)	P-value
Kidney	0.0408 [0.0396, 0.0420]	0.1809 [0.1769, 0.1848]	0.2515 [0.2226, 0.2804]	<0.0001*
		5.67%	29.03%
	7.70%
Heart	0.0163 [0.0146, 0.0181]	0.0679 [0.0606, 0.0753]	0.0792 [0.0717, 0.0868]	0.0116*
	24.6%	25.03%	20.84%
Fat	0.0280 [0.0280, 0.0315]	0.1274 [0.1211, 0.1337]	0.1352 [0.1281, 0.1422]	0.1372
	14.25%
		11.96%	12.39%
Lung	0.0164 [0.0156, 0.0193]	0.0675 [0.0647, 0.0704]	0.0796 [0.0735, 0.0857]	0.0125*
	12.94%	11.18%	19.79%
Jejunum	0.0736 [0.0705, 0.0767]	0.3644 [0.3482, 0.3805]	0.4780 [0.4298, 0.5263]	<0.0001*
	10.99%	11.66%	26.53%
Ileum	0.0644 [0.0610, 0.0679]	0.3070 [0.2904, 0.3236]	0.3601 [0.3246, 0.3956]	0.0053*
	14.15%	14.23%	25.91%
Muscle	0.0074 [0.0069, 0.0079]	0.0298 [0.0277, 0.0320]	0.0299 [0.0277, 0.0320]	0.9378
	16.83%	17.43%	17.06%
Brain	0.0179 [0.0174, 0.0183]	0.0741 [0.0726, 0.0756]	0.0858 [0.0828, 0.0888]	<0.0001*
	6.38%	4.77%	8.23%
Liver	0.0579 [0.0558, 0.0600]	0.2723 [0.2625, 0.2821]	0.3269 [0.2935, 0.3603]	0.0038*
	8.93%	8.70%	24.75%
Bone	0.0076 [0.0065, 0.0087]	0.0308 [0.0263, 0.0353]	0.0365 [0.0310, 0.0419]	0.1684
	30.93%	31.09%	31.09%
Skin	0.0050 [0.0041, 0.0059]	0.0201 [0.0167, 0.0235]	0.0277 [0.0231, 0.0322]	0.0475*
	35.89%	35.31%	34.02%

Note: FSR (plasma) indicates that plaALA TTR was used as the precursor pool during FSR calculation. FSR (intracellular) indicates that icALA TTR was used. p-value is reported for t-test between FSR (plasma) and FSR (intracellular). All FSR calculations used the same pbALA TTR. Data are expressed as mean [95% CI] and coefficient of variation(%). Protein FSR is fraction/day. n = 30 for all and a mix of high-active and low-active.

*significance of unpaired t-test (p<0.05)

Tissue protein fractional synthesis rates

Utilizing the plasma alanine TTR (Fig 2A), the protein-bound alanine TTR (Fig 2B), and sampling time to calculate protein FSR of the mice given 5% D2O enrichment, we found the jejunum had the highest tissue protein FSR followed by ileum and liver while skeletal muscle, bone and skin had the lowest protein FSR (Fig 3).

Fig 2

Alanine TTR of high and low active mice.

(A) Plasma alanine TTR of high and low active mice. (B) Protein-bound alanine TTR of high and low active mice per organ tissue. All data are mean [95% CI], n = 15.

Fig 3

Order of tissue protein FSR in various tissues from highest to lowest of combined high- and low-active mice.

All data are mean [95% CI], n = 30.

Analysis of protein FSR per physical activity levels resulted in a significant protein FSR difference in the kidney tissue between the high-active and low-active mice (Fig 4). The kidney protein FSR in the low-active mice was 7.82% higher than the high-active mice. No significant differences were found between protein FSR of high-active and low-active mice in any of the other studied organs (heart, fat, lung, jejunum, ileum, liver, muscle, brain, bone, and skin).

Fig 4

Protein FSR of low-active and high-active mice in each tissue.

Statistics: t-test corrected with false discovery rate (significance: q<0.05). Data are expressed as mean [95% CI] in fraction/day.

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to determine the differences in protein fractional synthesis rates (FSR) of various organ tissues between high- and low-active mice, using D2O. Only in kidney tissue, we identified a significant difference between protein FSR of high- and low-active mice suggesting a possible connection between renal protein synthesis and physical activity level.

Fractional synthesis rate of high- and low-active mice

Protein FSR is an important measure to gain an understanding of metabolic regulation, as the faster the organ can synthesize protein, the more control the tissue has through upregulation and downregulation of metabolic pathways. It, therefore, represents the organ’s ability to adapt to a change of environment. We calculated protein FSR of multiple organs in high-active and low-active mice to analyze the relationship between tissue protein synthesis and physical activity level. Our previous studies have identified a link between metabolism and physical activity level [2, 3]. In contradiction to our hypothesis, we found that the kidney of the low-active mice had a 7.8% higher protein FSR than the high active mice, but no significant differences were observed in any of the other studied tissues. Since we used inbred strains with inherently differing physical activity levels, the results indicate that the higher FSR in the kidney of low active mice may be contributing to a change in physical activity level rather than a consequence of low activity level. Although an argument can be made that a 7.8% difference in protein synthesis may not be physiologically relevant in a tissue with a high protein FSR like the kidney, many other studies have observed associations between physical activity level and the progression of chronic kidney disease [27, 28]. Evidence also exists that the benefit of physical activity for the kidney lies in the correction of blood pressure, reduction of inflammation, decrease in triglycerides, and reduction of co-morbid diseases [28], but is not related to any tissue-specific metabolic changes of the kidney instead of systemic adaptations. No studies, to our knowledge, have examined the physical activity-induced physiological changes on kidney tissue metabolism. Without a solid understanding of the role that physical activity plays on kidney tissue metabolism, we can not definitively explain a connection of a higher kidney protein FSR and a lower physical activity level.

In addition, a statistical trend was observed in the lung tissue with higher protein FSR in the low-active mice when compared to high-active mice. It is known that the lung tissue protein synthesis decreases from gestation to adult life then remains constant throughout adult life [29]. As a sedentary lifestyle is mostly accompanied by a reduced ventilatory load, one might expect protein FSR of the lungs to be suppressed in low-active mice. On the other hand, lung tissue protein synthesis has been demonstrated to increase in damaged states [30]. Moreover, in physically inactive chronic bronchitis patients with enhanced pulmonary and systemic low grade inflammation, higher resting whole-body protein turnover was observed [31]. Whether a chronic low grade inflammatory state is also present in the low-active mice in these mice needs further study but could possibly contribute to the inability to achieve a higher physical activity level. More research is needed to examine if protein synthesis of the lung can be modified by a change in physical activity and whether the upregulated protein FSR of the lung is responsible for the inability to achieve a higher physical activity level.

Overall, the present study shows that most of the measured high-active mice organs are not differently equipped for adaptation through protein FSR rates than the low-active mice. These results suggest that the source of physical activity regulation is not an increase in protein turnover but that the low active mice lack the ability to increase protein FSR to achieve a higher physical activity level.

Comparison of obtained data to literature

We compared the protein FSR in the tissues with those described in the literature and observed that the jejunum had the highest protein FSR followed by the liver, ileum, heart, and skeletal muscle in accordance with the reported protein FSR in multi-organ analyses [4, 7]. Our observed tissue-specific protein FSR values were comparable to those reported using D2O [7, 20, 32] and [2H5]phenylalanine flood dose methods [33, 34] in mice [33], rat [7], and humans [20].

Limitations

The mice used in this experiment were administered a pulse of stable isotope tracers an hour before tissue collection for analysis of amino acid whole body production and clearance as reported [17] and the mice underwent surgery with anesthesia. The anesthesia and surgical procedure would not make a large impact on the protein FSR as the incorporation of tracer from D2O has taken place over 24 hours. Therefore, an increase or decrease in protein FSR due to the surgery would have only affected the last hour of a 24 hour measurement. A 20% reduction in the FSR during the last hour would only have about 1% effect on the measured FSR. In addition, all mice underwent the same type of surgery and we can anticipate that the effect on FSR would be roughly the same. There is a possibility that these stable isotope tracers increased the amount of isotopes (5N, 13C or 2H) available since the labeled isotopes of the administered amino acids can appear in alanine [35]. We used plasma to calculate protein FSR due to the icALA TTR variability that possibly could be caused by the stable isotope pulse. However, we acknowledge that the intracellular alanine probably is the most optimal choice of precursor pool, because this pool represents the labeled alanine that is directly used by the cell for protein synthesis. We could use plaALA TTR since the enrichment of alanine should be the same in all tissues of the mouse [25] and our calculations using plasma did not change our overall conclusions. In future studies, plasma should be taken before the administration of stable isotope tracer pulse to obtain the highest accuracy. We recommend if intracellular alanine is desired to be used as the precursor pool then the subject should not be administered other stable isotope tracers.

The observed significant role of the kidney tissue and lung tissue may be (in part) related to other potential strain differences. However, extensive research has been done on the genomic and proteomic profiles between these two inbred strains in order to understand the role of genetics on physical activity level difference [1, 12]. With genetic control, as these strains are inbred, and with environmental controls, such as diet, we are able to contribute findings to a difference in the metabolic pathway.

Conclusion

In summary, the present study results show that physical activity level is not specifically regulated by protein FSR, although more in-depth analysis is required regarding the observed relationship between kidney tissue metabolism and physical activity. This work is important to determine which biological factors are regulating physical activity level, as physical inactivity is linked to several chronic diseases [36] and is a growing societal problem. More studies are needed to examine whether other metabolic parameters are able to differentiate the physical activity level. The methods used in the present study make it possible to explore the utilization of multiple energy substrates such as fatty acid oxidation and glycogen storage in the liver and muscle [6], whereas others also measured fatty acid and lipid synthesis using D2O [37, 38]. In addition, protein breakdown analysis of the different tissues would provide a more complete metabolic picture in regards to the physical activity level.

8 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-23160

Protein fractional synthesis rates within tissues of high- and low-active mice

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Cross,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

In particular, both reviewers were concerned that important methods were excluded from this manuscript which, made the reported methods somewhat confusing and limited the interpretation of the results. The premise of the study is also confusing. Why do the authors feel that FSR drives physical activity and not the other way around and can this premise actually be tested with the current experimental design? In addition, many questions still remain on the determination of FSR in this study including the methods used, the natural differences between the two inbred strains, and why the plasma alanine was so high. Finally, the authors need to be sure that the format carefully follows the journals specific guidelines. Please address these and the other comments brought up by both reviewers.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 23 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Randy Wayne Bryner, Ed.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript Cross et al. report the fractional synthesis rate of different tissues in two inbred mouse strains with different levels of physical activity. The manuscript is poorly written and does not follow the journal’s formatting guidelines. I find the premise that FSR drives physical activity puzzling. It would be easier (and testable) to argue that physical activity impacts FSR. In addition to physical activity, the two inbred strains differ in other traits which may confound the interpretation of the results. It was unclear why FSR was determined after surgery until it was mentioned in limitations that these results were part of another study. The feed removal, the anesthesia and the surgical procedure may have affected FSR without offering any advantage to its determination. In addition the administration of fluids during surgery likely diluted the D2O enrichment. Furthermore, the D2O enrichment reported in table 2 (0.2416) is outside the 95% CI of the values reported in the text. In fact, this value seems rather high if the authors successfully achieved a 5% D2O enrichment. Some tables and figures repeat the same data (e.g., Table 4 and Fig. 2) and some other are redundant and unnecessary (e.g., Table 3 and Fig. 3).

Reviewer #2: Summary.

Experts in the application of tracer methods in studies of protein kinetics have examined whether physical activity is associated with fundamental differences in protein synthesis. Mice were studied using D2O and protein synthesis was measured in multiple tissues over a 24-hour period. Overall, there were no major differences except for kidney and a suggestion in lung. Although the data are largely negative (i.e. virtually no differences between groups), the study is generally well done but it seems like several choices in the protocol design should be better explained.

Major comments.

If words permit, you might add a sentence or 2 in the ABSTRACT regarding a high-level view of the data. For example, values of protein synthesis in different tissues follow an expected pattern.

The need for a surgery seems odd. It looks like you only collected blood? Is this necessary? Also, there’s a peculiar statement in the 1st sentence under LIMITATIONS – you note that “…a pulse of stable isotope tracers …” was given ~ 1 hour before samples were collected. It looks like you had more going on in this study than simply giving D2O. It would be helpful to clarify the true protocol. What pulse of tracers?

Table 1 shows values for “total-body water” – the values are < 2 ml. What does this represent – intake? Please clarify.

It’s unfortunate that you did not directly measure body water labeling. I can appreciate your attention towards the labeling of alanine in plasma vs respective tissues, indeed, alanine is the true precursor. That said, the plasma alanine labeling seems too high given the dose of tracer you’ve administered. For example, we might expect ~ 5% water enrichment which limits the alanine to ~ 18.5 or 20% (3.7 or 4 times), however, the plasma is ~ 24%. This seems too high, in fact, tissue enrichments are very much in line with the expectation of ~ 3.7-4x equilibration between water and alanine labeling. You might want to elaborate on this point. It’s also odd that the suppl data show plasma alanine ~ 20% in each group – how does each group reach ~ 20% in suppl data but the combined data in Table 2 seem to reach ~ 24%?

The legend for Table 2 and 3 should more clearly state that you combined data for all animals. It might be better to change the order of Figure 2 and 3. In Figure 3 you get at more general trends in data / differences across tissues (comparable to what you show in Table 2 and 3) and then break data into active vs inactive groups (e.g. Table 4 comes last, why not make the data in Figure 2 become Figure 3)?

Minor comments.

You might explain whether you think studying the animals during activity would have been better? For example, animals were effectively sedentary for ~ 2 weeks prior to the study. Why not study subgroups who are regularly running vs those who are not? Can you comment on food intake when animals are exposed to running? It looks like there would be more marked effects if one group normally runs ~ 0.6 km/day vs another runs ~ 9.5 km/day. Not asking to do this experiment, just bring readers along with the rationale. As well, you chose to study all animals in a fed state. Would it have been advantageous to randomize each group to overnight fed vs fasted protocols and look for phenotypes that way? Again, not asking for more studies, just outline your choices. You are addressing a very important problem (i.e. the interplay between lifestyle and metabolic regulation), the question/comment here is … would it be of value to probe this with a different experimental paradigm?

You might want to explain why different collision energies are used for M0 (-68 V) vs M1 (-29 V)alanine.

It looks like low resolution figures are used here, the graphics are “fuzzy”. Presumably you will need to modify in finalized versions.

It does not seem like you need suppl data, I would suggest you consider adding those data to the main paper.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

23 Oct 2020

Thank you for your time spent reviewing our manuscript and for your comments/suggestions. They were very helpful in making the manuscript stronger. Please see the uploaded file titled "response to reviewers" for responses to each comment. Thank you again.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

12 Nov 2020

Protein fractional synthesis rates within tissues of high- and low-active mice

PONE-D-20-23160R1

Dear Dr. Cross,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Randy Wayne Bryner, Ed.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: Thanks for taking the extra time to better explain the logic regarding the experimental design and for adding specific details regarding the protocol. The work should be easier for others to follow.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

17 Nov 2020

PONE-D-20-23160R1

Protein fractional synthesis rates within tissues of high- and low-active mice

Dear Dr. Cross:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Randy Wayne Bryner

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE