Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37537627›Full record

ArticleSkeletal muscle2023

Development of muscle weakness in a mouse model of critical illness: does fibroblast growth factor 21 play a role?

Wouter Vankrunkelsven, Steven Thiessen, Sarah Derde, Ellen Vervoort, Inge Derese, Isabel Pintelon, Hanne Matheussen, Alexander Jans, Chloë Goossens, Lies Langouche and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Skeletal muscle, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. A Preclinical Model of Sepsis-Induced Myopathy with Disuse in Mice.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Wouter VankrunkelsvenClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Steven ThiessenClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Sarah DerdeClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Ellen VervoortClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Inge DereseClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Isabel PintelonLaboratory of Cell Biology and Histology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.
Hanne MatheussenClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Alexander JansClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Chloë GoossensClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Lies LangoucheClinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Greet Van den Berghe *Clinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Ilse Vanhorebeek *Clinical Division and Laboratory of Intensive Care Medicine, Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine, KU Leuven, Herestraat 49, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium. ilse.vanhorebeek@kuleuven.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5261-5192
KU Leuven · BEUniversity of Antwerp · BE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCritical illness is hallmarked by severe stress and organ damage. Fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) has been shown to rise during critical illness. FGF21 is a pleiotropic hormone that mediates adaptive responses to tissue injury and repair in various chronic pathological conditions. Animal studies have suggested that the critical illness-induced rise in FGF21 may to a certain extent protect against acute lung, liver, kidney and brain injury. However, FGF21 has also been shown to mediate fasting-induced loss of muscle mass and force. Such loss of muscle mass and force is a frequent problem of critically ill patients, associated with adverse outcome. In the present study, we therefore investigated whether the critical illness-induced acute rise in FGF21 is muscle-protective or rather contributes to the pathophysiology of critical illness-induced muscle weakness.

methodsIn a catheterised mouse model of critical illness induced by surgery and sepsis, we first assessed the effects of genetic FGF21 inactivation, and hence the inability to acutely increase FGF21, on survival, body weight, muscle wasting and weakness, and markers of muscle cellular stress and dysfunction in acute (30 h) and prolonged (5 days) critical illness. Secondly, we assessed whether any effects were mirrored by supplementing an FGF21 analogue (LY2405319) in prolonged critical illness.

resultsFGF21 was not required for survival of sepsis. Genetic FGF21 inactivation aggravated the critical illness-induced body weight loss (p = 0.0003), loss of muscle force (p = 0.03) and shift to smaller myofibers. This was accompanied by a more pronounced rise in markers of endoplasmic reticulum stress in muscle, without effects on impairments in mitochondrial respiratory chain enzyme activities or autophagy activation. Supplementing critically ill mice with LY2405319 did not affect survival, muscle force or weight, or markers of muscle cellular stress/dysfunction.

conclusionsEndogenous FGF21 is not required for sepsis survival, but may partially protect muscle force and may reduce cellular stress in muscle. Exogenous FGF21 supplementation failed to improve muscle force or cellular stress, not supporting the clinical applicability of FGF21 supplementation to protect against muscle weakness during critical illness.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessSepsisAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalEndoplasmic Reticulum StressFibroblast Growth FactorsMiceMuscle Weaknessfibroblast growth factor 21Fibroblast Growth FactorsAutophagyCritical illnessEndoplasmic reticulum stressFGF21Mitochondrial functionMuscle massMuscle weakness

Identifiers

PMID37537627
PMCPMC10401744
OpenAlexW4385563594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.