Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41030228›Full record

ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2025

Reduced Muscle Force in Dystrophic DMDΔ52 Pigs Is Incompletely Restored by Systemic Transcript Reframing (DMDΔ51-52).

Michaela Blasi, Hristiyan Hristov, Jan B Stöckl, Martin Kraetzl, Sonja Fiedler, Elisabeth Kemter, Mayuko Kurome, Barbara Kessler, Josep M Cambra, Valeri Zakhartchenko and 8 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

18 authors.

Michaela BlasiChair of Molecular Animal Breeding and Biotechnology, Gene Center and Department of Veterinary Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Hristiyan HristovChair of Molecular Animal Breeding and Biotechnology, Gene Center and Department of Veterinary Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jan B StöcklLaboratory for Functional Genome Analysis (LAFUGA), Gene Center, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Martin KraetzlChair of Molecular Animal Breeding and Biotechnology, Gene Center and Department of Veterinary Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sonja FiedlerInstitute of Veterinary Pathology, Center for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Elisabeth KemterChair of Molecular Animal Breeding and Biotechnology, Gene Center and Department of Veterinary Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Mayuko KuromeChair of Molecular Animal Breeding and Biotechnology, Gene Center and Department of Veterinary Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Barbara KesslerChair of Molecular Animal Breeding and Biotechnology, Gene Center and Department of Veterinary Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Josep M CambraCenter for Innovative Medical Models (CiMM), LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Valeri ZakhartchenkoChair of Molecular Animal Breeding and Biotechnology, Gene Center and Department of Veterinary Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Maggie C WalterFriedrich Baur Institute at the Department of Neurology, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christian KupattKlinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin I, TUM Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Munich, Germany.
Nikolai KlymiukCenter for Innovative Medical Models (CiMM), LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Thomas FröhlichLaboratory for Functional Genome Analysis (LAFUGA), Gene Center, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Andreas BlutkeInstitute of Veterinary Pathology, Center for Clinical Veterinary Medicine, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Michael StirmChair of Molecular Animal Breeding and Biotechnology, Gene Center and Department of Veterinary Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Florian JaudasChair of Molecular Animal Breeding and Biotechnology, Gene Center and Department of Veterinary Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Eckhard WolfChair of Molecular Animal Breeding and Biotechnology, Gene Center and Department of Veterinary Sciences, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-0430-9510

Funding

Bayerische Forschungsstiftung AZ 802-08Bayerische Forschungsstiftung PDOC-90-15Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 534046536Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung 2015_180European Research Council 101021043ForTra gGmbH für Forschungstransfer der EKFS 2018_T20ForTra gGmbH für Forschungstransfer der EKFS 2022_EKSE.41Leducq Foundation 23CVD01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDuchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) is a fatal X-linked disease caused by mutations in the DMD gene, leading to dystrophin deficiency and progressive degeneration of skeletal and cardiac muscles. Pigs lacking DMD exon 52 (DMDΔ52) are a clinically severe model for DMD, mimicking molecular, functional and pathological hallmarks of the human disease. Dystrophin expression can be restored by additionally deleting exon 51 (DMDΔ51-52), which reframes DMD transcripts and alleviates pathological alterations. DMDΔ51-52 pigs model Becker muscular dystrophy (BMD), a milder and slower-progressing form of muscle degeneration.

methodsThe Aurora Swine Isometric Footplate Test Apparatus was used to quantify functional parameters of the hind limb dorsiflexor muscle group of 3.5-month-old DMD pigs (n = 5), BMD pigs (n = 3) and wild-type (WT) littermate controls (n = 3). In addition, histopathological and proteomic studies of the functionally tested muscles were performed.

resultsAfter twitch stimulation, DMD muscle achieved 62.4% (p < 0.05) and BMD muscle 67.1% (p < 0.05) of the absolute peak force of WT muscle, indicating partial but not complete restoration of muscle force by DMDΔ51-52 transcript reframing. After normalization to the cube root of body mass, the values were 70.9% for DMD muscle (p = 0.05) and 65.8% for BMD muscle (p < 0.05). DMD muscle showed a reduced rate of contraction (p < 0.01); the rate of relaxation was decreased in both DMD (p < 0.01) and BMD (p < 0.05) compared with WT muscle. After tetanic stimulation, DMD muscle reached 54.7% (p < 0.001) and BMD muscle 80.4% (p = 0.08) of WT muscle force. Normalized values were 62.7% (DMD; p < 0.01) and 79.3% (BMD; p = 0.08). The rate of contraction was reduced in both DMD (p < 0.001) and BMD muscle (p < 0.01), whereas the return to the resting state was prolonged (p < 0.001) only in DMD vs. WT muscle. Histopathology and proteomics revealed no significant differences between BMD and WT muscles, whereas severe alterations were observed in DMD pigs.

conclusionsOur study pioneers the quantitative assessment of skeletal muscle function in dystrophic pigs. It demonstrates that systemic exon 51 skipping in DMD caused by loss of DMD exon 52 partially restores muscle function but does not achieve WT levels. These findings highlight the value of dynamic muscle force measurements as a sensitive tool to evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic interventions in the porcine DMD model.

Indexed as

DystrophinMuscle, SkeletalMuscular Dystrophy, DuchenneAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalExonsSwineDystrophinBecker muscular dystrophyDuchenne muscular dystrophydystrophinmuscle forcepig model

Identifiers

PMID41030228
PMCPMC12485293

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.