Huijing P A, Jaspers R T
Instituut voor Fundamentele en Klinische Bewegingswetenschappen, Faculteit Bewegingswetenschappen, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2005 Dec;15(6):349-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2005.00457.x.
This paper considers the literature and some new experimental results important for adaptation of muscle fiber cross-sectional area and serial sarcomere number. Two major points emerge: (1) general rules for the regulation of adaptation (for in vivo immobilization, low gravity conditions, synergist ablation, tenotomy and retinaculum trans-section experiments) cannot be derived. As a consequence, paradoxes are reported in the literature. Some paradoxes are resolved by considering the interaction between different levels of organization (e.g. muscle geometrical effects), but others cannot. (2) An inventory of signal transduction pathways affecting rates of muscle protein synthesis and/or degradation reveals controversy concerning the pathways and their relative contributions. A major explanation for the above is not only the inherently limited control of the experimental conditions in vivo, but also of in situ experiments. Culturing of mature single Xenopus muscle fibers at high and low lengths (allowing longitudinal study of adaptation for periods up to 3 months) did not yield major changes in the fiber cross-sectional area or the serial sarcomere number. This is very different from substantial effects (within days) of immobilization in vivo. It is concluded that overall strain does not uniquely regulate muscle fiber size. Force transmission, via pathways other than the myotendinous junctions, may contribute to the discrepancies reported: because of substantial serial heterogeneity of sarcomere lengths within muscle fibers creating local variations in the mechanical stimuli for adaptation. For the single muscle fiber, mechanical signalling is quite different from the in vivo or in vitro condition. Removal of tensile and shear effects of neighboring tissues (even of antagonistic muscle) modifies or removes mechanical stimuli for adaptation. It is concluded that the study of adaptation of muscle size requires an integrative approach taking into account fundamental mechanisms of adaptation, as well as effects of higher levels of organization. More attention should be paid to adaptation of connective tissues within and surrounding the muscle and their effects on muscular properties.
本文探讨了对于肌纤维横截面积和串联肌节数量适应性具有重要意义的文献及一些新的实验结果。出现了两个主要观点:(1)无法得出适应性调节的一般规则(针对体内固定、低重力条件、协同肌切除、肌腱切断和支持带横断实验)。因此,文献中报道了一些矛盾之处。通过考虑不同组织层次之间的相互作用(如肌肉几何效应),一些矛盾得以解决,但其他矛盾则无法解决。(2)对影响肌肉蛋白质合成和/或降解速率的信号转导途径的梳理揭示了关于这些途径及其相对贡献的争议。上述情况的一个主要解释不仅在于体内实验条件本身固有的有限控制,还在于原位实验。在高长度和低长度下培养成熟的非洲爪蟾单根肌纤维(可对长达3个月的适应性进行纵向研究),并未使纤维横截面积或串联肌节数量产生重大变化。这与体内固定在数天内产生的显著影响大不相同。得出的结论是,整体应变并非唯一调节肌纤维大小的因素。通过肌腱连接以外的途径进行的力传递可能导致了所报道的差异:因为肌纤维内肌节长度存在显著的串联异质性,从而产生了适应性机械刺激的局部变化。对于单根肌纤维而言,机械信号传导与体内或体外条件有很大不同。去除相邻组织(甚至拮抗肌)的拉伸和剪切效应会改变或消除适应性机械刺激。得出的结论是,对肌肉大小适应性的研究需要一种综合方法,既要考虑适应性的基本机制,也要考虑更高组织层次的影响。应更加关注肌肉内部和周围结缔组织的适应性及其对肌肉特性的影响。