Jj. Widrick et al., SOLEUS FIBER FORCE AND MAXIMAL SHORTENING VELOCITY AFTER NON-WEIGHT BEARING WITH INTERMITTENT ACTIVITY, Journal of applied physiology, 80(3), 1996, pp. 981-987
This study examined the effectiveness of intermittent weight bearing (
IWB) as a countermeasure to non-weight-bearing (NWB)-induced alteratio
ns in soleus type I fiber force (in mN), tension (P-o; force per fiber
cross-sectional area in kN/m(-2)), and maximal unloaded shortening ve
locity (V-o, in fiber lengths/s). Adult rats were assigned to one of t
he following groups: normal weight bearing (WE), 14 days of hindlimb N
WB (NWB group), and 14 days of hindlimb NWB with IWB treatments (IWB g
roup). The IWB treatment consisted of four 10-min periods of standing
WE each day. Single, chemically permeabilized soleus fiber segments we
re mounted between a force transducer and position motor and were stud
ied at maximal Ca2+ activation, after which type I fiber myosin heavy-
chain composition was confirmed by sodium dodecyl sufate-polyacrylamid
e gel electrophoresis. NWB resulted in a loss in relative soleus mass
(-45%), with type I fibers displaying reductions in diameter (-28%) an
d peak isometric force (-55%) and an increase in V-o (+33%). In additi
on, NWB induced a 16% reduction in type I fiber P-o, a 41% reduction i
n type I fiber peak elastic modulus [E(o), defined as (Delta force/Del
ta length) x (fiber length/fiber cross-sectional area] and a significa
nt increase in the P-o/E(o) ratio. In contrast to NWB, IWB reduced the
loss of relative soleus mass (by 22%) and attenuated alterations in t
ype I fiber diameter (by 36%), peak force (by 29%), and V-o (by 48%) b
ut had no significant effect on P-o, E(o), or P-o/E(o). These results
indicate that a modest restoration of WB activity during 14 days of NW
B is sufficient to attenuate type I fiber atrophy and to partially res
tore type I peak isometric force and V-o to WE levels. However, the NW
B-induced reductions in P-o and E(o), which we hypothesize to be due t
o a decline in the number and stiffness of cross bridges, respectively
, are considerably less responsive to this countermeasure treatment.