Scaling of muscle metabolic enzymes: An historical perspective

Moyes, Christopher D.; Genge, Christine E.

doi:10.1016/j.cbpa.2010.01.025

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The perception that mammalian muscle enzymes show an allometric scaling pattern have been based upon relatively few studies that focus on single select muscles and employ distantly related species (29). Our first goal was to assess if allometric scaling of metabolic enzymes was evident in one family of mammals (rodents).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have reported a reciprocal relationship between oxidative and glycolytic enzymes (15,29,36). When the muscles of different-sized rodents were compared in terms of the ratio of LDH/COX (Fig.…”

Section: Metabolic Enzymes In Rodentsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…There is no consensus on either the underlying origins or even the exact mathematical relationships (9,16,19,28,42,43), but it is generally accepted that a plot of log mass vs. log mass-specific metabolic rate demonstrates a negative slope, or scaling coefficient (b) ranging from Ϫ0.25 to Ϫ0.33. Muscle metabolic enzymes also show allometric scale effects in fish (36) and mammals (15), although typically less than is seen in metabolic rate (29,31). Interestingly, mitochondrial enzymes scale negatively and glycolytic enzymes scale positively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One paradigm that is perhaps most amenable to addressing interspecies differences is the variation arising in relation to body mass, or metabolic scaling. It has been known for more than 100 years that animals differing in body mass show allometric scaling of metabolic rate (29). There is no consensus on either the underlying origins or even the exact mathematical relationships (9,16,19,28,42,43), but it is generally accepted that a plot of log mass vs. log mass-specific metabolic rate demonstrates a negative slope, or scaling coefficient (b) ranging from Ϫ0.25 to Ϫ0.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…33. Muscle metabolic enzymes also show allometric scale effects in fish (36) and mammals (15), although typically less than is seen in metabolic rate (29,31). Interestingly, mitochondrial enzymes scale negatively and glycolytic enzymes scale positively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Origins of interspecies variation in mammalian muscle metabolic enzymes

Kocha

Genge

Moyes

2011

Physiological Genomics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kocha KM, Genge CE, Moyes CD. Origins of interspecies variation in mammalian muscle metabolic enzymes. Physiol Genomics 43: 873-883, 2011. First published May 17, 2011 doi:10.1152/physiolgenomics.00025.2011.-Do the transcriptional mechanisms that control an individual's mitochondrial content, PGC1␣ (peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor ␥ coactivator-1␣) and NRF1 (nuclear respiratory factor-1), also cause differences between species? We explored the determinants of cytochrome c oxidase (COX) activities in muscles from 12 rodents differing 1,000-fold in mass. Hindlimb muscles differed in scaling patterns from isometric (soleus, gastrocnemius) to allometric (tibialis anterior, scaling coefficient ϭ Ϫ0.16). Consideration of myonuclear domain reduced the differences within species, but interspecies differences remained. For tibialis anterior, there was no significant scaling relationship in mRNA/g for COX4-1, PGC1␣, or NRF1, yet COX4-1 mRNA/g was a good predictor of COX activity (r 2 ϭ 0.55), PGC1␣ and NRF1 mRNA correlated with each other (r 2 ϭ 0.42), and both could predict COX4-1 mRNA (r 2 ϭ 0.48 and 0.52) and COX activity (r 2 ϭ 0.55 and 0.49). This paradox was resolved by multivariate analysis, which explained 90% of interspecies variation, about equally partitioned between mass effects and PGC1␣ (or NRF1) mRNA levels, independent of mass. To explore the determinants of PGC1␣ mRNA, we analyzed 52 mammalian PGC1␣ proximal promoters and found no size dependence in regulatory element distribution. Likewise, the activity of PGC1␣ promoter reporter genes from 30 mammals showed no significant relationship with body mass. Collectively, these studies suggest that not all muscles scale equivalently, but for those that show allometric scaling, transcriptional regulation of the master regulators, PGC1␣ and NRF1, does not account for scaling patterns, though it does contribute to interspecies differences in COX activities independent of mass.scaling; cytochrome c oxidase; peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor ␥ coactivator-1␣; nuclear respiratory factor-1; mitochondria; lactate dehydrogenase ALL ANIMALS HAVE THE NEED to alter muscle mitochondrial content during development and in response to physiological and environmental challenges. Central to this remodeling process are transcriptional master regulators, namely peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor ␥ coactivator-1␣ (PGC1␣) and nuclear respiratory factor-1 (NRF1) (20,33,34). Mitochondrial biogenesis requires the coordination of hundreds of nuclear genes encoding mitochondrial structural and enzymatic proteins, including the proteins that control replication, transcription, and translation of mitochondrial DNA. This onerous task is mediated by the coactivator PGC1␣, which regulates suites of nuclear-encoded metabolic genes through direct and indirect association with DNA-binding transcription factors. Central to control of genes in oxidative phosphorylation are NRF1, NRF2, and nuclear hormone receptors [e.g., peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Metabolic Enzymes In Rodentsmentioning

confidence: 97%