Fiber Type and Stimulus Determine Progression of Skeletal Muscle Atrophy
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Skeletal muscle atrophy is prevalent worldwide and is a major detractor from length and quality of life. It is often diagnosed and treated as a single disorder, but the causal stimuli and progression of atrophy vary widely. Malnutrition and disuse are two common causes of muscle atrophy, and despite their prevalence and extensive characterization, there have been no direct comparisons of how these two types of atrophy progress and whether they differentially affect skeletal muscle fiber types. The purpose of this study is to directly compare atrophy from fasting and disuse and provide a transcriptomic resource for future research on both conditions.
Methods
We fasted or hindlimb suspended (HS) two cohorts of 12-week-old female C57/bl6 mice. Mice were fasted for up to 72 hours to induce malnutrition atrophy or were hindlimb suspended for 0, 3, 7, 14, or 28 days to induce disuse atrophy. At each timepoint, mice were euthanized and three muscles (tibialis anterior (TA), extensor digitorum longus (EDL), and soleus) were weighed and collected for RNA sequencing. Atrophy progression and gene expression changes were compared across muscle fiber types and atrophy stimuli.
Results
We found differences in atrophy progression between muscle fiber types based on fiber twitch speed and atrophy stimulus. Fasted mice lost 25% of their body weight and 23% of fast-twitch TA mass with little change in soleus. In contrast, HS mice lost 40% of the slower-twitch soleus but the effect on the TA was negligible. Gene expression varied in response to both atrophy stimuli, but a greater number of genes changed with fasting compared to HS in the EDL and soleus. By muscle type, a greater transcriptional shift occurred in the EDL with fasting while the soleus showed more gene changes during HS. Enrichment analysis of transcriptional changes showed similarities (downregulation in muscle growth pathways) and differences (increased fatty acid metabolism in fasting and increased neuronal activity in HS) between atrophy stimuli.
Conclusions
Atrophy progression varies based on stimuli and muscle fiber type. This study provides a large, matched data set where the effects of different atrophic stimuli can be easily and directly compared in multiple fiber types. To our knowledge, this is the first study to closely compare these two atrophy stimuli in a muscle type-specific context. This work demonstrates that atrophy is not a single disorder and that the development of therapies may need to be tailored to the atrophic stimulus.
