Cargando…

The lumbar multifidus is characterised by larger type I muscle fibres compared to the erector spinae

The metabolic capacity of a muscle is one of the determinants of muscle function. Muscle fiber type characteristics give an indication about this metabolic capacity. Therefore it might be expected that the lumbar multifidus (MF) as a local stabilizer contains higher proportions of slow type I fibers...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agten, Anouk, Stevens, Sjoerd, Verbrugghe, Jonas, Eijnde, Bert O., Timmermans, Annick, Vandenabeele, Frank
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Korean Association of Anatomists 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7343561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32647082
http://dx.doi.org/10.5115/acb.20.009
_version_ 1783555782326878208
author Agten, Anouk
Stevens, Sjoerd
Verbrugghe, Jonas
Eijnde, Bert O.
Timmermans, Annick
Vandenabeele, Frank
author_facet Agten, Anouk
Stevens, Sjoerd
Verbrugghe, Jonas
Eijnde, Bert O.
Timmermans, Annick
Vandenabeele, Frank
author_sort Agten, Anouk
collection PubMed
description The metabolic capacity of a muscle is one of the determinants of muscle function. Muscle fiber type characteristics give an indication about this metabolic capacity. Therefore it might be expected that the lumbar multifidus (MF) as a local stabilizer contains higher proportions of slow type I fibers, compared to the erector spinae (ES) as a global mobilizer. The aim of this study is to determine the muscle fiber characteristics of the ES and MF to provide insight into their structural and metabolic characteristics, and thereby the functional capacity of both muscles. Muscle fiber type characteristics in the ES and MF were investigated with an immunofluorescence staining of the myosin heavy chain isoforms. In both the ES and MF, type I muscle fibers are predominantly present. The cross-sectional area (CSA) of type I muscle fibers is significantly larger in the lumbar MF compared to the ES. However, the mean muscle fiber type percentage for type I was not significantly different, which resulted in an insignificant difference in relative cross-sectional area (RCSA) for type I. No significant differences were found for all other muscle fiber types. This may indicate that the MF displays muscle fiber type characteristics that tend to be more appropriate to maintain stability of the spine. However, because we could not demonstrate significant differences in RCSA between ES and MF, we cannot firmly state that there are functional differences between the ES an MF based only on structural characteristics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7343561
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Korean Association of Anatomists
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73435612020-07-17 The lumbar multifidus is characterised by larger type I muscle fibres compared to the erector spinae Agten, Anouk Stevens, Sjoerd Verbrugghe, Jonas Eijnde, Bert O. Timmermans, Annick Vandenabeele, Frank Anat Cell Biol Original Article The metabolic capacity of a muscle is one of the determinants of muscle function. Muscle fiber type characteristics give an indication about this metabolic capacity. Therefore it might be expected that the lumbar multifidus (MF) as a local stabilizer contains higher proportions of slow type I fibers, compared to the erector spinae (ES) as a global mobilizer. The aim of this study is to determine the muscle fiber characteristics of the ES and MF to provide insight into their structural and metabolic characteristics, and thereby the functional capacity of both muscles. Muscle fiber type characteristics in the ES and MF were investigated with an immunofluorescence staining of the myosin heavy chain isoforms. In both the ES and MF, type I muscle fibers are predominantly present. The cross-sectional area (CSA) of type I muscle fibers is significantly larger in the lumbar MF compared to the ES. However, the mean muscle fiber type percentage for type I was not significantly different, which resulted in an insignificant difference in relative cross-sectional area (RCSA) for type I. No significant differences were found for all other muscle fiber types. This may indicate that the MF displays muscle fiber type characteristics that tend to be more appropriate to maintain stability of the spine. However, because we could not demonstrate significant differences in RCSA between ES and MF, we cannot firmly state that there are functional differences between the ES an MF based only on structural characteristics. Korean Association of Anatomists 2020-06-30 2020-06-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7343561/ /pubmed/32647082 http://dx.doi.org/10.5115/acb.20.009 Text en Copyright © 2020. Anatomy & Cell Biology This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Agten, Anouk
Stevens, Sjoerd
Verbrugghe, Jonas
Eijnde, Bert O.
Timmermans, Annick
Vandenabeele, Frank
The lumbar multifidus is characterised by larger type I muscle fibres compared to the erector spinae
title The lumbar multifidus is characterised by larger type I muscle fibres compared to the erector spinae
title_full The lumbar multifidus is characterised by larger type I muscle fibres compared to the erector spinae
title_fullStr The lumbar multifidus is characterised by larger type I muscle fibres compared to the erector spinae
title_full_unstemmed The lumbar multifidus is characterised by larger type I muscle fibres compared to the erector spinae
title_short The lumbar multifidus is characterised by larger type I muscle fibres compared to the erector spinae
title_sort lumbar multifidus is characterised by larger type i muscle fibres compared to the erector spinae
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7343561/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32647082
http://dx.doi.org/10.5115/acb.20.009
work_keys_str_mv AT agtenanouk thelumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT stevenssjoerd thelumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT verbrugghejonas thelumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT eijndeberto thelumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT timmermansannick thelumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT vandenabeelefrank thelumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT agtenanouk lumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT stevenssjoerd lumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT verbrugghejonas lumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT eijndeberto lumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT timmermansannick lumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae
AT vandenabeelefrank lumbarmultifidusischaracterisedbylargertypeimusclefibrescomparedtotheerectorspinae