| Literature DB >> 34862585 |
Yuxiao Guo1, Jessica Piasecki2, Agnieszka Swiecicka3,4, Alex Ireland5, Bethan E Phillips1, Philip J Atherton1, Daniel Stashuk6, Martin K Rutter3,7, Jamie S McPhee5, Mathew Piasecki8.
Abstract
Long-term exercise training has been considered as an effective strategy to counteract age-related hormonal declines and minimise muscle atrophy. However, human data relating circulating hormone levels with motor nerve function are scant. The aims of the study were to explore associations between circulating sex hormone levels and motor unit (MU) characteristics in older men, including masters athletes competing in endurance and power events. Forty-three older men (mean ± SD age: 69.9 ± 4.6 years) were studied based on competitive status. The serum concentrations of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), total testosterone (T) and estradiol were quantified using liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. Intramuscular electromyographic signals were recorded from vastus lateralis (VL) during 25% of maximum voluntary isometric contractions and processed to extract MU firing rate (FR), and motor unit potential (MUP) features. After adjusting for athletic status, MU FR was positively associated with DHEA levels (p = 0.019). Higher testosterone and estradiol were associated with lower MUP complexity; these relationships remained significant after adjusting for athletic status (p = 0.006 and p = 0.019, respectively). Circulating DHEA was positively associated with MU firing rate in these older men. Higher testosterone levels were associated with reduced MUP complexity, indicating reduced electrophysiological temporal dispersion, which is related to decreased differences in conduction times along axonal branches and/or MU fibres. Although evident in males only, this work highlights the potential of hormone administration as a therapeutic interventional strategy specifically targeting human motor units in older age.Entities:
Keywords: Androgens; Circulating sex hormones; Electromyography; Masters athletes; Motor unit; Muscle
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34862585 PMCID: PMC9213614 DOI: 10.1007/s11357-021-00482-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Geroscience ISSN: 2509-2723 Impact factor: 7.581
Fig. 1Example MUP templates (top) and 10 consecutive observations of the same MUP (bottom, raster plot) used to determine MUP duration, complexity (number of turns (T)) and firing rate. Inter-discharge intervals (IDIs, seconds) are shown to left of each MUP in the raster plot, corresponding to a firing rate of approximately 10.1 Hz (a) and 8.8 Hz (b)
Fig. 2Circulating sex hormone levels among controls (CON), endurance masters athletes (EMA) and power masters athletes (PMA). *p < 0.05. vs. CON and PMA
Fig. 3Forest plot for regression coefficient estimate (beta and 95% confidence interval) for unadjusted (orange) and adjusted (+ athletic status, blue) associations between hormone levels and physical function parameters in trained and untrained older adults. Beta represents the difference in outcome for 1-unit change in predictor (endocrine parameters). PQCSA, peak quadriceps cross-sectional area; TUG, timed up and go; DHEAS, dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate; DHEA, dehydroepiandrosterone; DHT, dihydrotestosterone. a Learn mass; b Fat mass; c PQSA; d Jump power; e Grip strength; f TUG
Fig. 4Forest plot for regression coefficient estimate (beta and 95% confidence interval) for unadjusted (orange) and adjusted (+ athletic status, blue) associations between hormone levels and motor unit (MU) features in trained and untrained older adults. Beta represents the difference in outcome for 1-unit change in predictor (endocrine parameters). MUP, motor unit potential; MUP complexity is defined as the number of turns; DHEAS, dehydroepiandrosterone sulphate; DHEA, dehydroepiandrosterone; DHT, dihydrotestosterone. a MUP complexity; b MUP duration; c MUP firing rate
Participant characteristics by athletic status
| Control (CON) | Masters Endurance athletes (EMA) | Masters power athletes (PMA) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | 18 | 14 | 11 |
| Age, y | 70.7 ± 3.7 | 68.6 ± 3.6 | 70.5 ± 6.8 |
| Lean mass, kg | 54.95 ± 5.3 | 54.48 ± 5.9 | 58.48 ± 4.0 |
| Fat mass, kg | 7.92 ± 3.3 | ||
| PQCSA, cm2 | 62.2 ± 7.4 | 64.8 ± 11.0 | |
| Grip strength, N | 43.2 ± 6.3 | 41.0 ± 4.9 | 44.3 ± 5.2 |
| Jump power, W/kg | 2.47 ± 0.37 | 2.29 ± 0.31 | |
| TUG, s | 5.91 ± 0.43 | ||
| Complexity (no. of turns) | 4.23 ± 0.81 | 4.51 ± 0.93 | 4.25 ± 1.1 |
| Duration, ms | 16.3 ± 1.87 | 16.15 ± 3.01 | 15.72 ± 2.07 |
| Firing rate, Hz | 8.30 ± 1.01 | ||
Data are mean ± standard deviation
PQCSA, peak quadriceps cross-sectional area; TUG, timed up and go; MUP, motor unit potential
The values in bold in the tables reflect statistically significant (p < .05) differences between groups. aSignificant difference to CON; bsignificant difference to EMA. All MUP features were recorded at 25% MVC