Chapter title |
Eccentric Contraction-Induced Muscle Injury: Reproducible, Quantitative, Physiological Models to Impair Skeletal Muscle's Capacity to Generate Force.
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 1 |
Book title |
Skeletal Muscle Regeneration in the Mouse
|
Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-3810-0_1 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-3808-7, 978-1-4939-3810-0
|
Authors |
Jarrod A. Call, Dawn A. Lowe, Call, Jarrod A, Lowe, Dawn A |
Editors |
Michael Kyba |
Abstract |
In order to investigate the molecular and cellular mechanisms of muscle regeneration an experimental injury model is required. Advantages of eccentric contraction-induced injury are that it is a controllable, reproducible, and physiologically relevant model to cause muscle injury, with injury being defined as a loss of force generating capacity. While eccentric contractions can be incorporated into conscious animal study designs such as downhill treadmill running, electrophysiological approaches to elicit eccentric contractions and examine muscle contractility, for example before and after the injurious eccentric contractions, allows researchers to circumvent common issues in determining muscle function in a conscious animal (e.g., unwillingness to participate). Herein, we describe in vitro and in vivo methods that are reliable, repeatable, and truly maximal because the muscle contractions are evoked in a controlled, quantifiable manner independent of subject motivation. Both methods can be used to initiate eccentric contraction-induced injury and are suitable for monitoring functional muscle regeneration hours to days to weeks post-injury. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 1 | 20% |
Japan | 1 | 20% |
Taiwan | 1 | 20% |
United States | 1 | 20% |
Unknown | 1 | 20% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 3 | 60% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 31 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 6 | 19% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 16% |
Student > Bachelor | 3 | 10% |
Researcher | 3 | 10% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 6% |
Other | 4 | 13% |
Unknown | 8 | 26% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 23% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 16% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 10% |
Engineering | 2 | 6% |
Sports and Recreations | 2 | 6% |
Other | 1 | 3% |
Unknown | 11 | 35% |