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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |