Endurance training induces a partial fast-to-slow muscle phenotype transformation and mitochondrial biogenesis but no growth. In contrast, resistance training mainly stimulates muscle protein synthesis resulting in hypertrophy. The aim of this study was to identify signaling events that may mediate the specific adaptations to these types of exercise. Isolated rat muscles were electrically stimulated with either high frequency (HFS; 6x10 repetitions of 3 s-bursts at 100 Hz to mimic resistance training) or low frequency (LFS; 3 h at 10 Hz to mimic endurance training). HFS significantly increased myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic protein synthesis 3 h after stimulation 5.3- and 2.7-fold, respectively. LFS had no significant effect on protein synthesis 3 h after stimulation but increased UCP3 mRNA 11.7-fold, whereas HFS had no significant effect on UCP3 mRNA. Only LFS increased AMPK phosphorylation significantly at Thr172 by approximately 2-fold and increased PGC-1alpha protein to 1.3 times of control. LFS had no effect on PKB phosphorylation but reduced TSC2 phosphorylation at Thr1462 and deactivated translational regulators. In contrast, HFS acutely increased phosphorylation of PKB at Ser473 5.3-fold and the phosphorylation of TSC2, mTOR, GSK-3beta at PKB-sensitive sites. HFS also caused a prolonged activation of the translational regulators p70 S6k, 4E-BP1, eIF-2B, and eEF2. These data suggest that a specific signaling response to LFS is a specific activation of the AMPK-PGC-1alpha signaling pathway which may explain some endurance training adaptations. HFS selectively activates the PKB-TSC2-mTOR cascade causing a prolonged activation of translational regulators, which is consistent with increased protein synthesis and muscle growth. We term this behavior the "AMPK-PKB switch." We hypothesize that the AMPK-PKB switch is a mechanism that partially mediates specific adaptations to endurance and resistance training, respectively.

Chronic complications of DM are caused largely by HG-induced cellular and molecular impairment of neural and vascular structure and function. HG-induced oxidative stress is a major contributor in the development of long-term complications of DM. DM-induced neuropathy and angiopathy, in turn, may lead to the dysfunction of cells, tissues and organ systems.

Population-based studies have shown strong relationship between inflammatory markers and metabolic disturbances, obesity, and atherosclerosis, whereas inflammation has been considered as a "common soil" between these clinical entities and type 2 diabetes (T2D). The accumulation of macrophages in adipose tissue (AT), the common origin of macrophages and adipocytes, the prevalent presence of peripheral mononuclear cells, and apoptotic beta cells by themselves seem to be the sources of inflammation present in T2D, since they generate the mediators of the inflammatory processes, namely cytokines. The main cytokines involved in the pathogenesis of T2D are interleukin-1beta (IL-1beta), with an action similar to the one present in type 1 diabetes, tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), and IL-6, considered as the main regulators of inflammation, leptin, more recently introduced, and several others, such as monocyte chemoattractant protein-1, resistin, adiponectin, with either deleterious or beneficial effects in diabetic pathogenesis. The characterization of these molecules targeted diabetes treatment beyond the classical interventions with lifestyle changes and pharmaceutical agents, and toward the determination of specific molecular pathways that lead to low grade chronic inflammatory state mainly due to an immune system's unbalance.

Here, we review potential determinants of the anticancer efficacy of innate immune peptides (ACPs) for cancer cells. These determinants include membrane-based factors, such as receptors, phosphatidylserine, sialic acid residues, and sulfated glycans, and peptide-based factors, such as residue composition, sequence length, net charge, hydrophobic arc size, hydrophobicity, and amphiphilicity. Each of these factors may contribute to the anticancer action of ACPs, but no single factor(s) makes an overriding contribution to their overall selectivity and toxicity. Differences between the anticancer actions of ACPs seem to relate to different levels of interplay between these peptide and membrane-based factors.

No abstract