4.6 Article

Twenty-eightdays of exposure to 3454 m increases mitochondrial volume density in human skeletal muscle

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 594, 期 5, 页码 1151-1166

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/JP271118

关键词

-

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [320030_143745]
  2. Zurich Centre for Integrative Human Physiology
  3. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [320030_143745] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of hypoxia on skeletal muscle mitochondria is controversial. Studies superimposing exercise training on hypoxic exposure demonstrate an increase in skeletal muscle mitochondrial volume density (Mito(VD)) over equivalent normoxic training. In contrast, reductions in both skeletal muscle mass and Mito(VD) have been reported following mountaineering expeditions. These observations may, however, be confounded by negative energy balance, which may obscure the results. Accordingly we sought to examine the effects of high altitude hypoxic exposure on mitochondrial characteristics, with emphasis on Mito(VD), while minimizing changes in energy balance. For this purpose, skeletal muscle biopsies were obtained from nine lowlanders at sea level (Pre) and following 7 and 28days of exposure to 3454m. Maximal ergometer power output, whole body weight and composition, leg lean mass and skeletal muscle fibre area all remained unchanged following the altitude exposure. Transmission electron microscopy determined that intermyofibrillar (IMF) Mito(VD) was augmented (P=0.028) by 11.59.2% from Pre (5.050.9%) to 28Days (5.610.04%). In contrast, there was no change in subsarcolemmal (SS) Mito(VD). As a result, total Mito(VD) (IMF+SS) was increased (P=0.031) from 6.201.5% at Pre to 6.621.4% at 28Days (7.89.3%). At the same time no changes in mass-specific respiratory capacities, mitochondrial protein or antioxidant content were found. This study demonstrates that skeletal muscle Mito(VD) may increase with 28days acclimation to 3454 m.

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

4.6
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