Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T08:24:43.829Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of dietary restriction on muscle fibre length in mice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

A. C. B. Hooper
A. C. B. Hooper
Affiliation:
Department of Anatomy, University College, Dublin, Irish Republic
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The dietary intake of male mice from a line selected for high body-weight was restricted to 60% by weight of the ad lib. intake of the control litter-mates between days 21 and 42 post partum.

2. One group was killed and compared with controls at 42 d of age. A further group then resumed ad lib. feeding. Mice which had regained the control body-weight by 61 d of age were killed and also compared with controls.

3. Muscle weight, fibre length, sarcomere length, sarcomere number per fibre, actin length and myosin length were measured in the biceps brachii and tibialis anterior muscles.

4. Muscle weight, fibre length and the number of sarcomeres per fibre were significantly reduced in both muscles following dietary restriction, but regained their control values following a resumption of normal feeding. The other indices remained unchanged throughout the study.

5. The pattern of fibre length changes, due entirely to alterations in sarcomere number, is similar to that reported previously during growth, senescence and immobilization and following selection for high and low body-weights.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , May 1984 , pp. 479 - 483
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1984

References

REFERENCES

Birzgalis, A. R., Bedi, K. S., Mahon, M. & Smart, J. L. (1980). Journal of Anatomy 130, 651–652.Google Scholar
Falconer, D. S. (1973). Genetical Research 22, 291–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldspink, G. (1965). American Journal of Physiology 209, 100–104.Google Scholar
Goldspink, G. (1968). Journal of Cell Science 3, 539–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffron, J. J. A. & Hegarty, P. V. J. (1974). Comparative Biochemistry and Physiology 49A, 43–56.Google Scholar
Hegarty, P. V. J. & Kim, K. O. (1981). Pediatric Research 15, 128–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegarty, P. V. J. & Naude, R. T. (1970). Laboratory Practice 19, 161–164.Google Scholar
Hooper, A. C. B. (1976 a). Laboratory Practice 25, 147–149.Google Scholar
Hooper, A. C. B. (1976 b). Growth 40, 33–39.Google Scholar
Hooper, A. C. B. (1981). Gerontology 27, 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hooper, A. C. B. (1983). Gerontology 29, 221–225.Google Scholar
Hooper, A. C. B. & Graham, A. (1982). Irish Journal of Medical Science 152, 206.Google Scholar
Hooper, A. C. B. & Hurley, M. P. (1983). Animal Production 36, 223–227.Google Scholar
Joubert, D. M. (1956). Journal of Agricultural Science 47, 59–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laboratory Animal Science Association (1969). Laboratory Animal Handbooks No. 2. Dietary Standards for Laboratory Rats and Mice [Coates, E.M., O'Donoghue, P. N., Payne, P. R., Ward, R. J., editors]. London: Laboratory Animals Ltd.Google Scholar
Layman, D. K., Swan, P. B. & Hegarty, P. V. J. (1981). British Journal of Nutrition 45, 475–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millward, D. J. (1978). Transactions of the Biochemical Society 6, 494–499.Google Scholar
Rowe, R. W. D. (1968). Journal of Experimental Zoology 167, 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. P. G. & Hughes, P. C. R. (1978). Acta Anatomica 101, 249–254.Google Scholar
Williams, P. E. & Goldspink, G. (1973). Journal of Anatomy 116, 45–55.Google Scholar