Alterations in the structural characteristics of rectus abdominis muscles caused by diabetes and pregnancy: A comparative study of the rat model and women.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2020
2020
Historique:
received:
24
09
2019
accepted:
16
03
2020
entrez:
4
4
2020
pubmed:
4
4
2020
medline:
14
7
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In the present study, we compared the effect of diabetic pregnancy on the rectus abdominis muscle (RAM) in humans and rats. We hypothesized that our animal model could provide valuable information about alterations in the RAM of women with Gestational Diabetes (GDM). Newborns female rats (n = 10/group) were administered streptozotocin (100 mg/kg body weight) subcutaneously and were mated on reaching adulthood, to develop the mild hyperglycemic pregnant (MHP) rat model. At the end of pregnancy, the mothers were sacrificed, and the RAM tissue was collected. Pregnant women without GDM (non-GDM group; n = 10) and those diagnosed with GDM (GDM group; n = 8) and undergoing treatment were recruited, and RAM samples were obtained at C-section. The RAM architecture and the distribution of the fast and slow fibers and collagen were studied by immunohistochemistry. No statistically significant differences in the maternal and fetal characters were observed between the groups in both rats and women. However, significant changes in RAM architecture were observed. Diabetes in pregnancy increased the abundance of slow fibers and decreased fast fiber number and area in both rats and women. A decrease in collagen distribution was observed in GDM women; however, a similar change was not observed in the MHP rats. Our results indicated that pregnancy- associated diabetes- induced similar structural adaptations in the RAM of women and rats with slight alterations in fiber type number and area. These findings suggest that the MHP rat model can be used for studying the effects of pregnancy-associated diabetes on the fiber structure of RAM.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
In the present study, we compared the effect of diabetic pregnancy on the rectus abdominis muscle (RAM) in humans and rats. We hypothesized that our animal model could provide valuable information about alterations in the RAM of women with Gestational Diabetes (GDM).
METHOD
Newborns female rats (n = 10/group) were administered streptozotocin (100 mg/kg body weight) subcutaneously and were mated on reaching adulthood, to develop the mild hyperglycemic pregnant (MHP) rat model. At the end of pregnancy, the mothers were sacrificed, and the RAM tissue was collected. Pregnant women without GDM (non-GDM group; n = 10) and those diagnosed with GDM (GDM group; n = 8) and undergoing treatment were recruited, and RAM samples were obtained at C-section. The RAM architecture and the distribution of the fast and slow fibers and collagen were studied by immunohistochemistry.
RESULTS
No statistically significant differences in the maternal and fetal characters were observed between the groups in both rats and women. However, significant changes in RAM architecture were observed. Diabetes in pregnancy increased the abundance of slow fibers and decreased fast fiber number and area in both rats and women. A decrease in collagen distribution was observed in GDM women; however, a similar change was not observed in the MHP rats.
CONCLUSION
Our results indicated that pregnancy- associated diabetes- induced similar structural adaptations in the RAM of women and rats with slight alterations in fiber type number and area. These findings suggest that the MHP rat model can be used for studying the effects of pregnancy-associated diabetes on the fiber structure of RAM.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32243473
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231096
pii: PONE-D-19-26866
pmc: PMC7122752
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0231096Subventions
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : RG/15/5/31446
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Nov;98(11):4227-49
pubmed: 24194617
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jul 08;(3):CD003395
pubmed: 19588341
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Aug;82(8):1081-8
pubmed: 11494188
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Aug;213(2):191.e1-7
pubmed: 25979618
Mol Genet Metab. 2011 Jul;103(3):275-81
pubmed: 21470888
J Anat. 2010 Sep;217(3):196-202
pubmed: 20646108
Muscle Nerve. 2011 Sep;44(3):318-31
pubmed: 21949456
Nutr Clin Pract. 2016 Feb;31(1):40-8
pubmed: 26703961
Diabetes. 1991 Dec;40 Suppl 2:74-8
pubmed: 1748270
Int Urogynecol J. 2017 Aug;28(8):1233-1239
pubmed: 28083712
Diabetes. 1981 Dec;30(12):1000-7
pubmed: 7030826
Exp Gerontol. 2013 May;48(5):492-8
pubmed: 23425621
Diabetes Care. 2011 Jan;34 Suppl 1:S62-9
pubmed: 21193628
J Biol Chem. 2005 Mar 18;280(11):10290-7
pubmed: 15598661
Mol Cell Endocrinol. 2016 Apr 15;425:11-25
pubmed: 26902174
Adv Exp Med Biol. 2018;1088:73-92
pubmed: 30390248
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2011;66(8):1341-6
pubmed: 21915481
Front Physiol. 2013 Dec 20;4:379
pubmed: 24391596
J Diabetes Investig. 2019 Nov;10(6):1471-1479
pubmed: 31074209
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008 Jun;17(5):783-92
pubmed: 18537481
J Appl Physiol (1985). 2009 May;106(5):1650-9
pubmed: 19246652
Braz J Med Biol Res. 2018 Mar 01;51(4):e7035
pubmed: 29513796
Life Sci. 2018 Dec 1;214:1-10
pubmed: 30366036
Diabetes Care. 1994 Feb;17(2):152-4
pubmed: 8137688
Diabetes Care. 2010 Mar;33(3):676-82
pubmed: 20190296
Lancet. 2009 May 23;373(9677):1773-9
pubmed: 19465232
Diabetologia. 1997 Sep;40(9):1062-9
pubmed: 9300243
Ann Biomed Eng. 2011 Jan;39(1):549-58
pubmed: 20824342
Biochem Pharmacol (Los Angel). 2015 Oct;4(5):
pubmed: 26693099
Lancet. 2019 Jun 29;393(10191):2636-2646
pubmed: 31171417
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;126(1):67-73
pubmed: 26241258
J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2013 Dec 23;12(1):60
pubmed: 24364898
Histochemistry. 1980;65(3):249-59
pubmed: 6445347
PLoS One. 2016 Nov 7;11(11):e0166106
pubmed: 27820862
Anat Rec. 1979 Nov;195(3):455-62
pubmed: 159648
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Jun;222(6):598.e1-598.e7
pubmed: 31765643
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jan;109(1):136-43
pubmed: 17197599
Diabet Med. 2005 Oct;22(10):1401-7
pubmed: 16176203
BMJ. 2010 Apr 01;340:c1395
pubmed: 20360215
Diabetes Care. 2012 Aug;35(8):1672-9
pubmed: 22596176
Diabetes. 2015 Feb;64(2):485-97
pubmed: 25187364
J Neurol Sci. 1973 Jan;18(1):111-29
pubmed: 4120482
Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2019 Nov 25;74:e1319
pubmed: 31778432
Cancer Cell. 2005 Nov;8(5):421-32
pubmed: 16286249
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2013 Jan;208(1):50.e1-7
pubmed: 23103345
Cell Tissue Res. 1975 Oct 13;162(3):387-94
pubmed: 126806
Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;129(2):273-280
pubmed: 28079773
Eur J Endocrinol. 2016 Feb;174(2):R43-51
pubmed: 26431552
Diabetes. 2011 Feb;60(2):416-26
pubmed: 21270253
J Physiol Biochem. 2015 Dec;71(4):703-17
pubmed: 26407807
Neurourol Urodyn. 2017 Mar;36(3):574-579
pubmed: 26949929
Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S13-S28
pubmed: 30559228
Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2014 Mar;210(3):600-11
pubmed: 24168489
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009 May;144 Suppl 1:S146-58
pubmed: 19285776
Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. 2006 Mar;290(3):E560-5
pubmed: 16249255
Int Urogynecol J. 2014 Mar;25(3):403-15
pubmed: 24043129
Diabetes Care. 2019 Jan;42(Suppl 1):S165-S172
pubmed: 30559240
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2015 Jan;14(1):58-74
pubmed: 25549588
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2018 Feb;221:81-88
pubmed: 29275277
Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:819065
pubmed: 24977161
Diabetes Care. 2016 Dec;39(12):2204-2210
pubmed: 27634392
BJOG. 2012 Oct;119(11):1334-43
pubmed: 22901044
Diabetol Metab Syndr. 2010 Jun 08;2(1):37
pubmed: 20529353