| Literature DB >> 35606155 |
Matthew S Brook1,2, Tanner Stokes3, Stefan H M Gorissen3, Joseph J Bass1, Chris McGlory4, Jessica Cegielski1, Daniel J Wilkinson1, Bethan E Phillips1, Ken Smith1, Stuart M Phillips3, Philip J Atherton1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We determined the short-term (i.e. 4 days) impacts of disuse atrophy in relation to muscle protein turnover [acute fasted-fed muscle protein synthesis (MPS)/muscle protein breakdown (MPB) and integrated MPS/estimated MPB].Entities:
Keywords: Atrophy; Immobilization; Muscle; Protein breakdown; Protein synthesis
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35606155 PMCID: PMC9397550 DOI: 10.1002/jcsm.13005
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle ISSN: 2190-5991 Impact factor: 12.063
Figure 1Schematic representation of study design.
Figure 2Schematic representation of infusion trial.
Figure 3Thigh lean mass (A), vastus lateralis (VL) muscle thickness (B), and maximal voluntary isometric contraction torque (C) of the control and immobilized (immob) leg pre and post 4 days of single leg immobilization in health young men. **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05.
Figure 4Over the 4 day study period in control and immobilized legs (A) muscle protein synthesis in % day−1, (B) fractional growth rate in % day−1, (C) fractional breakdown rate in % day−1, and (D) correlation between the change in MPS and change in VL MT. **P < 0.01, *P < 0.05.
Figure 5(A) Acute fasted and fed MPS rates in % h−1 in control and immobilized legs. (B) The absolute change in integrated or acute muscle protein synthesis in % day−1 (assuming two‐thirds of the day is spent fasted and one‐third fed). (C) Acute fasted tracer decay rate (k h−1 value). *P < 0.05.
Figure 6Correlation between change in fasted to fed muscle protein synthesis vs. (A) change in fasted to fed p‐rpS6 and (B) change in in fasted to fed p‐4E‐BP1.
Muscle anabolic and catabolic signalling in control and immobilized legs
| Fasted | Fed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P‐mTORS2448 | C | 0.60 ± 0.45 | 0.61 ± 0.24 |
Time = 0.89 Intervention = 0.69 Interaction = 0.84 |
| I | 0.56 ± 0.48 | 0.52 ± 0.26 | ||
| P‐4EBP1T37/46 | C | 0.67 ± 0.21 | 0.72 ± 0.17 |
Time = 0.73 Intervention = 0.09 Interaction = 0.54 |
| I | 0.84 ± 0.29 | 0.84 ± 0.24 | ||
| P‐AKTS473 | C | 0.67 ± 0.21 | 1.02 ± 0.48 |
Time = 0.006 Intervention = 0.94 Interaction = 0.56 |
| I | 0.60 ± 0.21 | 1.12 ± 0.59 | ||
| P‐RPS6S235/236 | C | 0.52 ± 0.60 | 1.78 ± 0.52 |
Time = 0.001 Intervention = 0.81 Interaction = 0.77 |
| I | 0.57 ± 0.47 | 1.62 ± 0.96 | ||
| P‐eIF4ES209 | C | 0.66 ± 0.27 | 0.66 ± 0.22 |
Time = 0.21 Intervention = 0.85 Interaction = 0.15 |
| I | 0.78 ± 0.28 | 0.59 ± 0.19 | ||
| P‐eIF4BS422 | C | 0.69 ± 0.13 | 0.88 ± 0.42 |
Time = 0.05 Intervention = 0.46 Interaction = 0.88 |
| I | 0.59 ± 0.28 | 0.77 ± 0.36 | ||
| P‐eEF2T56 | C | 0.68 ± 0.17 | 0.65 ± 0.16 |
Time = 0.88 Tntervention = 0.76 Interaction = 0.36 |
| I | 0.66 ± 0.12 | 0.71 ± 0.11 | ||
| Calpain 1 | C | 0.69 ± 0.12 | 0.74 ± 0.11 |
Time = 0.52 Intervention = 0.17 Interaction = 0.30 |
| I | 0.78 ± 0.10 | 0.77 ± 0.09 | ||
| MAFbx | C | 0.63 ± 0.36 | 0.76 ± 0.23 |
Time = 0.45 Intervention = 0.83 Interaction = 0.28 |
| I | 0.74 ± 0.43 | 0.72 ± 0.32 | ||
| Ubiquitin | C | 0.69 ± 0.09 | 0.76 ± 0.16 |
Time = 0.92 Intervention = 0.20 Interaction = 0.15 |
| I | 0.70 ± 0.08 | 0.64 ± 0.09 |
Data were normalized to control mean and transformed using Y = (log(1 + Y)).
P < 0.05.
Figure 7Representative immunoblots for muscle signalling pathway activity.