11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Conserved and muscle-group-specific gene expression patterns shape postnatal development of the novel extraocular muscle phenotype.

      Physiological Genomics
      Animals, Animals, Newborn, genetics, Cluster Analysis, Conserved Sequence, Gene Expression Profiling, methods, statistics & numerical data, Gene Expression Regulation, Hindlimb, chemistry, growth & development, metabolism, Microscopy, Electron, Morphogenesis, Muscle, Skeletal, ultrastructure, Myosin Heavy Chains, Neuromuscular Junction, Oculomotor Muscles, Oligonucleotide Array Sequence Analysis, Organ Specificity, Protein Isoforms, Rats, Rats, Sprague-Dawley

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Current models in skeletal muscle biology do not fully account for the breadth, causes, and consequences of phenotypic variation among skeletal muscle groups. The muscle allotype concept arose to explain frank differences between limb, masticatory, and extraocular (EOM) muscles, but there is little understanding of the developmental regulation of the skeletal muscle phenotypic range. Here, we used morphological and DNA microarray analyses to generate a comprehensive temporal profile for rat EOM development. Based upon coordinate regulation of morphologic/gene expression traits with key events in visual, vestibular, and oculomotor system development, we propose a model that the EOM phenotype is a consequence of extrinsic factors that are unique to its local environment and sensory-motor control system, acting upon a novel myoblast lineage. We identified a broad spectrum of differences between the postnatal transcriptional patterns of EOM and limb muscle allotypes, including numerous transcripts not traditionally associated with muscle fiber/group differences. Several transcription factors were differentially regulated and may be responsible for signaling muscle allotype specificity. Significant differences in cellular energetic mechanisms defined the EOM and limb allotypes. The allotypes were divergent in many other functional transcript classes that remain to be further explored. Taken together, we suggest that the EOM allotype is the consequence of tissue-specific mechanisms that direct expression of a limited number of EOM-specific transcripts and broader, incremental differences in transcripts that are conserved by the two allotypes. This represents an important first step in dissecting allotype-specific regulatory mechanisms that may, in turn, explain differential muscle group sensitivity to a variety of metabolic and neuromuscular diseases.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Comments

          Comment on this article