Cargando…

An evaluation of the reliability of muscle fiber cross-sectional area and fiber number measurements in rat skeletal muscle

BACKGROUND: The reliability of estimating muscle fiber cross-sectional area (measure of muscle fiber size) and fiber number from only a subset of fibers in rat hindlimb muscle cross-sections has not been systematically evaluated. This study examined the variability in mean estimates of fiber cross-s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ceglia, Lisa, Niramitmahapanya, Sathit, Price, Lori L, Harris, Susan S, Fielding, Roger A, Dawson-Hughes, Bess
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3599694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1480-9222-15-6
_version_ 1782263029075804160
author Ceglia, Lisa
Niramitmahapanya, Sathit
Price, Lori L
Harris, Susan S
Fielding, Roger A
Dawson-Hughes, Bess
author_facet Ceglia, Lisa
Niramitmahapanya, Sathit
Price, Lori L
Harris, Susan S
Fielding, Roger A
Dawson-Hughes, Bess
author_sort Ceglia, Lisa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The reliability of estimating muscle fiber cross-sectional area (measure of muscle fiber size) and fiber number from only a subset of fibers in rat hindlimb muscle cross-sections has not been systematically evaluated. This study examined the variability in mean estimates of fiber cross-sectional area as a function of the number of fibers measured, and tested whether counting a subset of fibers in a cross-section could predict total fiber number in middle-aged rats. RESULTS: Soleus and extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscle cross-sections from 23-month-old, male Fisher 344 x Brown Norway rats were stained for myofibrillar ATPase activity to identify muscle fiber type (either type I [slow-twitch] or II [fast-twitch]) and laminin to facilitate fiber cross-sectional measurements. We outlined the circumference of 1000 to 1600 single muscle fibers for measurement of fiber cross-sectional area within muscle sections. Mean type I fiber cross-sectional area was based on soleus muscle sections which were predominantly composed of type I muscle fibers. Mean type II fiber cross-sectional area was based on EDL muscle sections which were predominantly composed of type II muscle fibers. A bootstrapping resampling technique demonstrated that variability in sampling distribution of mean type I and II fiber cross-sectional areas decreased and gradually stabilized as the number of fibers measured increased with large declines in variability occurring at numbers below 150 fibers. Coefficients of variation for bootstrapped mean type I fiber cross-sectional areas were lower than for type II. In the same muscle sections, total fiber number was compared to fiber numbers within 1, 2, 3, and 4 fixed field areas (10x magnification; 1000 x 1500 pixels in size/field) on the cross-section. Fiber numbers from 3 to 4 fields (approximating 15 to 20% of the cross-section) provided a reasonably predictive value of total fiber number (r=0.57-0.59, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: These data describe a pattern of improved precision in estimating mean fiber cross-sectional area as sample size of fibers measured increases to at least 150 in this rat model. Counting 15-20% of the fibers in cross-sections provides a reasonably reliable estimate of the total fiber number.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3599694
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-35996942013-03-17 An evaluation of the reliability of muscle fiber cross-sectional area and fiber number measurements in rat skeletal muscle Ceglia, Lisa Niramitmahapanya, Sathit Price, Lori L Harris, Susan S Fielding, Roger A Dawson-Hughes, Bess Biol Proced Online Methodology BACKGROUND: The reliability of estimating muscle fiber cross-sectional area (measure of muscle fiber size) and fiber number from only a subset of fibers in rat hindlimb muscle cross-sections has not been systematically evaluated. This study examined the variability in mean estimates of fiber cross-sectional area as a function of the number of fibers measured, and tested whether counting a subset of fibers in a cross-section could predict total fiber number in middle-aged rats. RESULTS: Soleus and extensor digitorum longus (EDL) muscle cross-sections from 23-month-old, male Fisher 344 x Brown Norway rats were stained for myofibrillar ATPase activity to identify muscle fiber type (either type I [slow-twitch] or II [fast-twitch]) and laminin to facilitate fiber cross-sectional measurements. We outlined the circumference of 1000 to 1600 single muscle fibers for measurement of fiber cross-sectional area within muscle sections. Mean type I fiber cross-sectional area was based on soleus muscle sections which were predominantly composed of type I muscle fibers. Mean type II fiber cross-sectional area was based on EDL muscle sections which were predominantly composed of type II muscle fibers. A bootstrapping resampling technique demonstrated that variability in sampling distribution of mean type I and II fiber cross-sectional areas decreased and gradually stabilized as the number of fibers measured increased with large declines in variability occurring at numbers below 150 fibers. Coefficients of variation for bootstrapped mean type I fiber cross-sectional areas were lower than for type II. In the same muscle sections, total fiber number was compared to fiber numbers within 1, 2, 3, and 4 fixed field areas (10x magnification; 1000 x 1500 pixels in size/field) on the cross-section. Fiber numbers from 3 to 4 fields (approximating 15 to 20% of the cross-section) provided a reasonably predictive value of total fiber number (r=0.57-0.59, P=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: These data describe a pattern of improved precision in estimating mean fiber cross-sectional area as sample size of fibers measured increases to at least 150 in this rat model. Counting 15-20% of the fibers in cross-sections provides a reasonably reliable estimate of the total fiber number. BioMed Central 2013-03-08 /pmc/articles/PMC3599694/ /pubmed/23497012 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1480-9222-15-6 Text en Copyright ©2013 Ceglia et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Methodology
Ceglia, Lisa
Niramitmahapanya, Sathit
Price, Lori L
Harris, Susan S
Fielding, Roger A
Dawson-Hughes, Bess
An evaluation of the reliability of muscle fiber cross-sectional area and fiber number measurements in rat skeletal muscle
title An evaluation of the reliability of muscle fiber cross-sectional area and fiber number measurements in rat skeletal muscle
title_full An evaluation of the reliability of muscle fiber cross-sectional area and fiber number measurements in rat skeletal muscle
title_fullStr An evaluation of the reliability of muscle fiber cross-sectional area and fiber number measurements in rat skeletal muscle
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of the reliability of muscle fiber cross-sectional area and fiber number measurements in rat skeletal muscle
title_short An evaluation of the reliability of muscle fiber cross-sectional area and fiber number measurements in rat skeletal muscle
title_sort evaluation of the reliability of muscle fiber cross-sectional area and fiber number measurements in rat skeletal muscle
topic Methodology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3599694/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23497012
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1480-9222-15-6
work_keys_str_mv AT ceglialisa anevaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT niramitmahapanyasathit anevaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT priceloril anevaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT harrissusans anevaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT fieldingrogera anevaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT dawsonhughesbess anevaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT ceglialisa evaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT niramitmahapanyasathit evaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT priceloril evaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT harrissusans evaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT fieldingrogera evaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle
AT dawsonhughesbess evaluationofthereliabilityofmusclefibercrosssectionalareaandfibernumbermeasurementsinratskeletalmuscle