ArticleJournal of animal science2019
Cellular development in muscle differs between Angus steers from low and high muscle score selection lines1.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed cellular characteristics of longissimus lumborum (LL) and semitendinosus (ST) muscles in steers genetically selected for low (Low) or high (High) muscling using live muscle scoring, and High steers with 1 copy of the loss-of-function 821 del11 MSTN allele (HighHet). We hypothesized High and HighHet have altered muscle cellular characteristics and mechanisms influencing muscling compared with Low steers. Angus steers 25 mo old comprising 14 High, 19 Low, and 11 HighHet were backgrounded to 20 mo of age, grain finished for 150 d, and then slaughtered. Body and carcass weights did not differ due to muscling line (P = 0.46). Weight of LL was 16% greater (P = 0.004) and total protein in LL was 18% greater (P = 0.012) in HighHet than Low steers. ST weight in HighHet was 10% and 13% greater than in High and Low steers (P = 0.007), respectively, and of total ST protein 12% and 17% greater in HighHet than High or Low (P = 0.002). Cross-sectional area (CSA) of LL was greater in HighHet than in High and greater in High than in Low (85.0 vs. 77.0 vs. 70.4 cm2, P < 0.001). Apparent number of myofibers and myofibers per unit CSA did not differ between the muscling lines in LL (P = 0.14) or ST (P = 0.47). Myofiber CSA was greater in the ST of Low than of High and HighHet for type 1 (36% and 31% respectively, P = 0.005) and 2A (22% and 25%, P < 0.001). HighHet steers had greater area of glycolytic (type 2X) relative to more oxidative myofiber types within LL (P = 0.02; 11% and 43% more than High and Low, respectively) and ST (P < 0.001; 27% and 75%). Concentration of RNA in LL was 13% and 10% greater (P = 0.005) in High than in Low and HighHet, respectively, and total amount of RNA in LL was 22% greater in High and 20% greater in HighHet than in Low (P < 0.001). The LL of High steers had less protein to RNA (P = 0.03; 57.4 vs. 65.6) and more RNA to DNA (P = 0.007; 9.03 vs. 7.83) than Low. HighHet steers had 11% more DNA in ST than High (P = 0.04) and 19% more RNA in ST than Low (P = 0.012). The shift towards glycolytic myofibers was consistent with loadings in a principal component that explained 39% of the variation in LL and 38% in ST. Overall, these findings show that selection for increased muscling using live cattle muscle scoring, and 1 copy of the 821 del11 MSTN allele, results in more glycolytic muscle. They also suggest that increased muscling of the High compared with Low steers may be associated with increased translational capacity in the LL.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.