4.5 Article

Adding protein to a carbohydrate supplement provided after endurance exercise enhances 4E-BP1 and RPS6 signaling in skeletal muscle

期刊

JOURNAL OF APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY
卷 104, 期 4, 页码 1029-1036

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/japplphysiol.01173.2007

关键词

insulin; amino acids; carbohydrates; signal transduction; mammalian target of rapamycin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To examine the role of both endurance exercise and nutrient supplementation on the activation of mRNA translation signaling pathways postexercise, rats were subjected to a 3-h swimming protocol. Immediately following exercise, the rats were provided with a solution containing either 23.7% wt/vol carbohydrates (CHO), 7.9% wt/vol protein (Pro), 31.6% wt/vol (23.7% wt/vol CHO + 7.9% wt/vol Pro) carbohydrates and Pro (CP), or a placebo (EX). The rats were then killed at 0, 30, and 90 min postexercise, and phosphorylation states of mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), ribosomal S6 kinase (p70(S6K)), ribosomal protein S6 (rpS6), and 4E-binding protein 1 (4E-BP1), were analyzed by immunoblot analysis in the red and white quadriceps muscle. Results demonstrated that rat groups provided with any of the three nutritional supplements (CHO, Pro, CP) transiently increased the phosphorylation states of mTOR, 4E-BP1, rpS6, and p70(S6K) compared with EX rats. Although CHO, Pro, and CP supplements phosphorylated mTOR and p70(S6K) after exercise, only CP elevated the phosphorylation of rpS6 above all other supplements 30 min postexercise and 4E-BP1 30 and 90 min postexercise. Furthermore, the phosphorylation states of 4E-BP1 (r(2) = 0.7942) and rpS6 (r(2) = 0.760) were highly correlated to insulin concentrations in each group. These results suggest that CP supplementation may be most effective in activating the mTOR-dependent signaling pathway in the postprandial state postexercise, and that there is a strong relationship between the insulin concentration and the activation of enzymes critical for mRNA translation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据