Hochachka Peter W, Burelle Yan
Department of Zoology and Radiology, and Sports Medicine Division, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mol Cell Biochem. 2004 Jan-Feb;256-257(1-2):95-103. doi: 10.1023/b:mcbi.0000009861.45692.ed.
Borrowing from metabolic control analysis the concept of control coefficients or ci values, defined as fractional change in MMR/fractional change in the capacity of any given step in ATP turnover, we used four performance phenotypes to compare mechanisms of control of aerobic maximum metabolic rate (MMR): (i) untrained sedentary (US) subjects, as a reference group against which to compare (ii) power trained (PT), (iii) endurance trained (ET), and (iv) high altitude adapted native (HA) subject groups. Sprinters represented the PT group; long distance runners illustrated the ET group; and Andean natives represented the HA group. Numerous recent studies have identified contributors to control on both the adenosine triphosphate (ATP) supply side and the ATP demand side of ATP turnover. From the best available evidence it appears that at MMR all five of the major steps in energy delivery (namely, ventilation, pulmonary diffusion, cardiac output, tissue capillary--mitochondrial O2 transfer, and aerobic cell metabolism per se) approach an upper functional ceiling, with control strength being distributed amongst the various O2 flux steps. On the energy demand side, the situation is somewhat simplified since at MMR approximately 90% of O2-based ATP synthesis is used for actomyosin (AM) and Ca2+ ATPases; at MMR these two ATP demand rates also appear to be near an upper functional ceiling. In consequence, at MMR the control contributions or ci values are distributed amongst all seven major steps in ATP supply and ATP demand pathways right to the point of fatigue. Relative to US (the reference group), in PT subjects at MMR control strength shifts towards O2 delivery steps (ventilation, pulmonary diffusion, and cardiac output); here physiological regulation clearly dominates MMR control. In contrast in ET and HA subjects at MMR control shifts towards the energy demand steps (AM and Ca2+ ATPases), and more control strength is focussed on tissue level ATP supply and ATP demand. One obvious advantage of the ET and HA biochemical-level control is improved metabolite homeostasis. Additionally, with some reserve capacity in the O2 delivery steps, the focussing of control on ATP turnover at the tissue level has allowed nature to improve on an 'endurance machine' design.
借鉴代谢控制分析中控制系数或ci值的概念(定义为最大代谢率(MMR)的分数变化/ATP周转中任何给定步骤能力的分数变化),我们使用四种表现型来比较有氧最大代谢率(MMR)的控制机制:(i)未经训练的久坐不动(US)受试者,作为一个参考组,用于与(ii)力量训练(PT)、(iii)耐力训练(ET)和(iv)高海拔适应原住民(HA)受试者组进行比较。短跑运动员代表PT组;长跑运动员代表ET组;安第斯原住民代表HA组。最近的许多研究已经确定了ATP周转中ATP供应侧和ATP需求侧控制的影响因素。从现有最佳证据来看,在MMR时,能量传递的所有五个主要步骤(即通气、肺扩散、心输出量、组织毛细血管 - 线粒体氧气转移以及有氧细胞代谢本身)都接近功能上限,控制强度分布在各个氧气通量步骤之间。在能量需求方面,情况有所简化,因为在MMR时,约90%基于氧气合成的ATP用于肌动球蛋白(AM)和Ca2+ATP酶;在MMR时,这两个ATP需求率似乎也接近功能上限。因此,在MMR时,控制贡献或ci值分布在ATP供应和ATP需求途径的所有七个主要步骤中,直至疲劳点。相对于US(参考组),在PT受试者中,MMR时控制强度向氧气输送步骤(通气、肺扩散和心输出量)转移;在这里,生理调节显然主导着MMR控制。相反,在ET和HA受试者中,MMR时控制向能量需求步骤(AM和Ca2+ATP酶)转移,并且更多的控制强度集中在组织水平的ATP供应和需求上。ET和HA生化水平控制的一个明显优势是改善了代谢物稳态。此外,由于氧气输送步骤有一些储备能力,将控制集中在组织水平的ATP周转上使大自然能够改进“耐力机器”的设计。