Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18440990›Full record

ReviewThe Journal of physiology2008

Nuclear domains during muscle atrophy: nuclei lost or paradigm lost?

Kristian Gundersen, Jo C Bruusgaard

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Journal of physiology, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Increased [Biomolecules · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kristian GundersenDepartment of Molecular Biosciences, University of Oslo, PO Box 1041 Blindern, N-0316 Oslo, Norway. kgunder@imbv.uio.no
Jo C Bruusgaard
University of Oslo · NO

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

According to the current paradigm, muscle nuclei serve a certain cytoplasmic domain. To preserve the domain size, it is believed that nuclei are injected from satellite cells fusing to fibres undergoing hypertrophy, and lost by apoptosis during atrophy. Based on single fibre observations in and ex vivo we suggest that nuclear domains are not as constant as is often indicated. Moreover, recent time lapse in vivo imaging of single fibres suggests that at least for the first few weeks, atrophy is not accompanied by any loss of nuclei. Apoptosis is abundant in muscle tissue during atrophy conditions, but in our opinion it has not been unequivocally demonstrated that such nuclei are myonuclei. As we see it, the preponderance of current evidence suggests that disuse atrophy is not accompanied by loss of nuclei, at least not for the first 2 months. Moreover, it has not been proven that myonuclear apoptosis does occur in permanent fibres undergoing atrophy; it seems more likely that it is confined to stromal cells and satellite cells. If muscle atrophy is not related to loss of nuclei, design of intervention therapies should focus on protein metabolism rather than regeneration from stem cells.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell NucleusHumansMuscle ContractionMuscle Fibers, SkeletalMuscular Atrophy

Identifiers

PMID18440990
PMCPMC2536588
OpenAlexW2147287886

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.