2006
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2006.112110
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Maternal nutrient restriction affects properties of skeletal muscle in offspring

Abstract: Maternal nutrient restriction (NR) affects fetal development with long-term consequences on postnatal health of offspring, including predisposition to obesity and diabetes. Most studies have been conducted in fetuses in late gestation, and little information is available on the persistent impact of NR from early to mid-gestation on properties of offspring skeletal muscle, which was the aim of this study. Pregnant ewes were subjected to 50% NR from day 28-78 of gestation and allowed to deliver. The longissimus … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

14
255
2
13

Year Published

2009
2009
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 304 publications
(284 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
(65 reference statements)
14
255
2
13
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the majority of prenatal growth occurs in the last 2 months of gestation, which may make restrictions during early to midgestation less important for fetal growth. Previous research in sheep indicates that maternal nutrient restriction can result in reduced muscle weights, decreased fiber number and increased percentage of type II glycolytic fibers (Zhu et al, 2006;Daniel et al, 2007). It appears that the extent of energy restriction in the current trial, where protein supply was adequate, did not negatively impact muscle fiber diameter, number or area at this stage of development.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 50%
“…However, the majority of prenatal growth occurs in the last 2 months of gestation, which may make restrictions during early to midgestation less important for fetal growth. Previous research in sheep indicates that maternal nutrient restriction can result in reduced muscle weights, decreased fiber number and increased percentage of type II glycolytic fibers (Zhu et al, 2006;Daniel et al, 2007). It appears that the extent of energy restriction in the current trial, where protein supply was adequate, did not negatively impact muscle fiber diameter, number or area at this stage of development.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 50%
“…The most critical period was before the peak in secondary myofibre formation in ewes (30 to 70 days). It resulted in increased diameter of fast myofibres, no change in diameter of slow myofibres and decreased fast-to-slow myofibre ratio per unit area (Zhu et al, 2006;Brameld and Daniel, 2008). Elsewhere, undernutrition in ewes between 85 to 115 days of gestation, which encompasses the period of cessation of myofibre formation, had no effect on the number of myofibres in the newborn lambs, but decreased the weight of muscles in lambs (Fahey et al, 2005).…”
Section: Nutritional and Physiological Control Of Muscular And At Growthmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Similar results were obtained by Symeon et al (2015) when maternal feed restriction to 50% of maintenance energy requirements compared with 100% of maintenance energy requirements was applied to rabbit does. However, in sheep, maternal feed restriction during gestation increased offsprings' IMF (Zhu et al, 2006), increased fat-to-lean ratio (Daniel et al, 2007) and decreased muscle weight and number of fast fibres in longissimus dorsi and vastus lateralis muscles in neonatal lambs with possible implications for subsequent meat quality (Fahey et al, 2005). In addition, in pigs, Bee (2004) reported lower birth weights that were accompanied with higher body fat percentage at conventional slaughter weight of 104 kg in piglets born from undernourished sows.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With regard to farm animals, the effects of maternal undernutrition during gestation on performance and/or body composition of the offsprings has been extensively studied in sheep (Krausgrill et al, 1999;Fahey et al, 2005;Zhu et al, 2006;Daniel et al, 2007), pigs (Bee, 2004;Gondret et al, 2005;Rehfeldt and Kuhn, 2006) and cattle (Long et al, 2010;Robinson et al, 2013). In rabbits, feed restriction in late pregnancy may alter mortality rate and birth-to-weaning weights (Nafeaa et al, 2011), although the timing of feed restriction is likely important for reproductive performance (Manal et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%