Abstract
Background: Sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity are increasingly recognized in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), yet their molecular underpinnings remain poorly defined. We sought to synthesize current evidence on biomarker associations with muscle loss and function in the post renal transplant setting. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies evaluating biomarkers related to sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity in adult and pediatric KTRs were included. Quality assessment was performed with the NHLBI tool. Results: Seven studies were included, encompassing 548 KTRs. Myostatin levels predicted sarcopenia in KTRs (cut-off: 390 pg/mL) and inversely correlated with Metabolic equivalent of Tasks (METs), handgrip strength (HGS), and graft performance. Although adiponectin was negatively correlated with body fat, its high-molecular-weight isoform was linked to lower muscle mass and long-term graft decline. Leptin was associated with sarcopenic obesity and lower estimated Glomerular Filtration Rate (eGFR). Insulin like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) independently predicted HGS but not muscle mass. Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels predicted sarcopenia (cut off: 17.8 ng/mL) and reflected physical activity levels. Visfatin showed no association with sarcopenia but it was positively correlated with eGFR. Lastly, certain polymorphisms of Alpha-actinin-3 (ACTN3) were shown to genetically predispose to post-transplant sarcopenia. Conclusions: These emerging candidate biomarkers provide promising mechanistic insight into post-transplant muscle decline and may ultimately support more personalized risk assessment. Further validation is needed, and functional measures remain the most reliable clinical tools at present.
1. Introduction
Sarcopenia, defined as the progressive and generalized loss of skeletal muscle mass and function, has been identified as a major contributor to frailty, disability, and poor outcomes in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) [1,2]. Among kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), the prevalence of sarcopenia remains substantial (25–70%), despite improvements in renal function and overall survival [3]. The etiology of post-transplant sarcopenia is multifactorial, arising from a complex interplay of persistent low-grade inflammation, protein-energy wasting, insulin resistance, and disturbances in anabolic hormone signaling. Additional contributors include prolonged physical inactivity, extended exposure to corticosteroids and calcineurin inhibitors, and pre-existing muscle catabolism acquired during the dialysis period, all of which impair muscle regeneration and accelerate lean tissue loss after transplantation [3]. Sarcopenic obesity, defined as a condition in which excess adiposity coexists with muscle wasting, may further exacerbate functional impairment and graft-related complications [4,5]. Despite its clinical significance, there are no established molecular tools to reliably identify or predict sarcopenic disorders in this population.
In recent years, there has been a marked increase in research focusing on the identification of circulating biomarkers that may reflect or mediate changes in muscle metabolism, regeneration, and catabolism. Indeed, a wide array of myokines, adipokines, hormones, and cytokines have been implicated in muscle regulation in CKD patients both before and after transplantation [6,7]. These markers may provide mechanistic insights into sarcopenia and could potentially serve as adjuncts to imaging and functional testing in both diagnosis and longitudinal surveillance.
Nevertheless, existing literature on biomarkers of sarcopenia in KTRs is fragmented, with heterogeneous methodologies, variable definitions, and limited external validity. To date, no comprehensive synthesis has been conducted to consolidate biomarker data potentially associated with outcomes following renal transplantation. Bridging this gap is essential for understanding the molecular basis of muscle decline in kidney transplant recipients and for designing future interventions that encompass personalized rehabilitation, nutritional optimization, and risk-based immunosuppression [8]. The aim of this comprehensive review is to summarize and critically evaluate the available evidence on biomarkers potentially associated with sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in KTRs. Specifically, we explore molecular correlates of muscle mass, strength, physical activity, and graft function, with an emphasis on translational relevance and future research directions.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Design
The present comprehensive review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (end-of search date: 1 February 2025) [9]. The PECO criteria (Population/Participants, Exposure, Comparison and Outcome [10] were utilized to define our research question:
P (Population): Adult and pediatric KTRs.
E (Exposure): Presence of sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity with biomarker profiling.
C (Comparison): KTRs without sarcopenic features.
O (Outcomes): The primary outcomes were graft survival, patient survival, and incidence of post-transplant complications. The secondary outcomes were perioperative and post-operative metrics including functional status, quality of life, and rehospitalization rates.
2.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Eligible studies were English-language clinical investigations assessing biomarkers of sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity in adult or pediatric (<18 years) renal transplant recipients, and designed as randomized controlled trials, or prospective non-randomized studies, or retrospective analyses.
The exclusion criteria were as follows: (i) non-English language publications, (ii) studies irrelevant to the research question, (iii) narrative and systematic reviews, meta-analyses, editorials, letters, commentaries, personal viewpoints, and errata, (iv) studies involving renal transplant recipients without evidence of sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity, and (v) studies addressing sarcopenia or sarcopenic obesity in renal transplant recipients without reporting any biomarker assessment. In situations where multiple publications reported on overlapping patient populations, only the study with the largest cohort or the longest follow-up duration was selected for inclusion.
2.3. Search Strategy
A comprehensive literature search was performed independently by two independent investigators using the PubMed/MEDLINE and Cochrane CENTRAL databases. The search strategy employed Boolean operators and included the following terms: (renal transplant OR kidney transplant OR renal transplantation OR kidney transplantation) AND (sarcopenia OR sarcopenic obesity), with no restrictions on publication date. Discrepancies or disagreements regarding study eligibility were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. Furthermore, reference lists of relevant articles were screened manually using the snowball approach to identify additional eligible studies [11]. The Rayyan reference and article manager software were utilized for all stages of the database search and study selection [12].
2.4. Data Extraction
A predefined set of criteria was established to guide the extraction of relevant data from the eligible studies. This process was conducted independently by two reviewers. All disagreements were resolved in consultation with a third reviewer.
The extracted data included: study identifiers (first author, year of publication, journal, institution, country, and PubMed ID), inclusion and exclusion criteria, demographics (sample size, age, sex), and clinical characteristics of kidney transplant recipients [including duration of dialysis, creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), blood glucose levels, total cholesterol, high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, triglycerides, serum albumin, hemoglobin]. Biomarker-related data were also recorded, including the name of the molecule, biological sample type (e.g., tissue or body fluid), measurement units, and analytical technique used. Captured anthropometric measures included body mass index (BMI), waist and hip circumference, percentage of body fat, lean body mass, skeletal muscle index (SMI), appendicular skeletal muscle index (ASMI), psoas muscle index (PMI), lean tissue index (LTI), smooth muscle index (sMI), intramuscular adipose tissue content (IMAC), and handgrip strength (HGS). Additionally, the level of physical activity, where reported, was recorded in metabolic equivalents (METs). Definitions for sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity were documented, along with any available time-to-event outcomes following renal transplantation.
2.5. Descriptive Analysis
For continuous variables reported in at least two studies, we summarized the data as the median of the reported study-specific means, accompanied by the range of these means. For continuous data that were reported as median and interquartile (IQR) range, we used the Hozo et al. formula to estimate the respective mean and standard deviation (SD) [13]. When results were not offered in SD, but rather in confidence intervals (CI), we used Cochrane’s handbook equation for converting CI to SD [14]. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed using Stata/SE 18.0 software (Stata Corp, College Station, TX, USA).
2.6. Assessment of Study Quality
The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) assessment tool, which draws on established criteria from organizations such as the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Cochrane Collaboration, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, and the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination [15]. The NHLBI tool assigns scores from 1 to 14, with 0–5 indicating poor quality, 6–9 fair quality, and 10–14 good quality. Three independent reviewers assessed each study, and their evaluations were aggregated. The overall mean and standard deviation of the quality scores across all included studies were then calculated.
2.7. Protocol Registration
Our study was prospectively registered in the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42024583728).
3. Results
3.1. Study Selection
The initial database search identified 253 potentially relevant articles. Following title and abstract screening, 87 full-text articles were retrieved for comprehensive evaluation. After applying the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven studies met the eligibility requirements and were included in the final systematic review (Supplemental Figure S1). The manuscripts originated from a diverse range of institutions across Europe and Asia and were published between 2016 and 2024 (Table 1) [16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Table 2 outlines the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria applied across the analyzed studies. Definitions of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity varied amongst evaluated manuscripts and can be explored in Table 3.
Table 1.
Included studies.
Table 2.
Study inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Table 3.
Definitions of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity.
3.2. Quality Assessment
The mean NHLBI score of the review was 8.0 (SD: 1.4) and detailed quality assessment for each study is provided in Supplemental Table S1.
3.3. Kidney Transplant Recipient Characteristics
A total of 889 patients were included in this systematic review, of whom 548 (61.6%) were kidney transplant recipients. Laboratory data were available specifically for the transplant cohort (Table 4). Among these patients, the median duration of dialysis prior to transplantation was 34.2 [21.5–51.3] months, and the median age at transplantation was 44.3 [40.6–50.4] years. The proportion of male patients within the transplant group was 59.5%. Laboratory values in the transplant cohort at the time of assessment for sarcopenic disorders, revealed a median serum creatinine of 1.3 [1.1–1.6] mg/dL, eGFR of 64.3 [54.0–75.2] mL/min/1.73 m2, total cholesterol of 201.7 [189.0–214.4] mg/dL, HDL cholesterol of 46.8 [45.5–48.2] mg/dL, triglycerides of 154.4 [101.0–180.6] mg/dL, serum albumin of 4.2 [3.6–4.4] g/dL, and hemoglobin of 13.1 [12.9–13.9] g/dL. Details regarding immunosuppression regimens are summarized in Table 5.
Table 4.
Kidney transplant recipient characteristics.
Table 5.
Immunosuppression regimens.
3.4. Anthropometric Measurements in KTRs
Anthropometric and functional metrics used to diagnose sarcopenic disorders varied across the included studies (Table 6). BMI [16,17,18,19,21,22] and HGS [16,18,19,20,22] were each assessed in six and five studies, respectively. The median BMI among transplant recipients was 23.4 [20.4–26.3] kg/m2, and the median handgrip strength was 30.0 [26.9–33.1] kg (Table 7). The median body fat percentage was 33.1 [28.3–38.0] [16,22].
PMI was reported in two studies [17,21], while LTI—also evaluated in two studies—had median of 13.1 [11.9–14.2] kg/m2 [16,22]. On the other hand, SMI [18], ASMI [20], sMI [19], IMAC [17], lean body mass [16], as well as hip [16] and waist circumference [16] were measured in only one study each (Table 7).
Table 6.
Captured biomarkers and anthropometric methods.
Table 6.
Captured biomarkers and anthropometric methods.
| Study | Marker (Units) | Marker Biomaterial | Marker Measurment Method | Anthropometric Methods |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Czaja-Stolc et al., 2024 [22] | Adiponectin (μg/mL), IL-6 (pg/mL), Leptin (ng/mL), Myostatin (pg/mL) | Blood serum | ELISA | BMI: (kg/m2), HGS (kg), LTI (kg/m2), Body fat (%) |
| Fujimoto et al., 2023 [21] | Alpha-actinin-3 (SNPs in ACTN3 gene) | Blood | RT-PCR | BMI (kg/m2), PMI (cm2/m2) |
| Yasar et al., 2022 [20] | Myostatin (ng/mL), IL-6 (pg/mL) | Blood serum | ELISA, Chemiluminescent Immunoassay | ASMI (kg/m2), HGS (kg) |
| Koito et al., 2021 [18] | BDNF (ng/mL), Myostatin (pg/mL) | Blood serum | ELISA | BMI (kg/m2), HGS (kg), MET (min/week), SMI (kg/m2) |
| Yildirim et al., 2022 [19] | IGF-1 (ng/mL) | Blood serum | Chemiluminescent Immunoassay | BMI (kg/m2), HGS (kg), sMI (smooth muscle mass/height2) |
| Adachi et al., 2020 [17] | Adiponectin (μg/mL) | Blood serum | ELISA | BMI (kg/m2), IMAC, PMI (cm2/m2) |
| Małgorzewicz et al., 2016 [16] | Adiponectin (mg/L), Leptin (μg/L), Visfatin (μg/L) | Blood serum | ELISA | Body fat (%), BMI (kg/m2), HGS (kg), Hip circumference (cm), Lean Body Mass (kg), LTI (kg/m2), Waist circumference (cm) |
ASMI: Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Index, BDNF: Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor, BMI: Body Mass Index, ELISA: Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, HGS: Handgrip Strength, IGF-1: Insulin-like Growth Factor 1, IL-6: Interleukin 6, IMAC: Intramuscular Adipose Tissue Content, KTRs: Kidney Transplant Recipients, LTI: Lean Tissue Index, MET: Metabolic Equivalents, NA: Not Applicable, NR: Not reported, PMI: Psoas Mass Index, RT-PCR: Real Time Polymerase Chain Reaction, SD: Standard Deviation, SMI: Skeletal Mass Index, sMI: Smooth Muscle Index, SNPs: Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms.
Table 7.
Results of anthropometric studies.
Table 7.
Results of anthropometric studies.
| Anthropometry/Study | KTRs | Hemodialysis | Peritoneal Dialysis | Non-Dialysis Dependent CKD | Control Group (No Kidney Disease) | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ASMI | ||||||
| Yasar et al., 2022 [20] (kg/m2) | 5.5 ± 1.9 | 5.4 ± 1.8 | 5.2 ± 1.5 | 5.0 ± 0.8 | NA | 0.709 |
| BMI | ||||||
| Czaja-Stolc et al., 2024 [22] (kg/m2) | 26.2 ± 5.2 | 24.9 ± 3.9 | 26.7 ± 4.4 | NA | NR | 0.220 |
| Fujimoto et al., 2023 [21] (kg/m2) | 21.9 ± 11.0 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Koito et al., 2021 [18](kg/m2) | 21.5 ± 2.8 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Yildirim et al., 2022 [19] (kg/m2) | 26.3 ± 5.7 | NR | NR | NR | 25.6 ± 4.0 | 0.080 |
| Adachi et al., 2020 [17] (kg/m2) | 20.4 ± 2.8 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Małgorzewicz et al., 2016 [16] (kg/m2) | 25.3 ± 4.2 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Mean value (kg/m2) | 23.6 ± 5.3 | 24.9 ± 3.9 | 26.7 ± 4.4 | NA | 25.6 ± 4.0 | |
| Body fat | ||||||
| Czaja-Stolc et al., 2024 [22] (%) | 38.0 ± 8.4 | 36.6 ± 10.8 | 34.1 ± 9.8 | NA | NR | 0.180 |
| Małgorzewicz et al., 2016 [16] (%) | 28.3 ± 8.4 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Mean value (%) | 33.1 ± 8.4 | 36.6 ± 10.8 | 34.1 ± 9.8 | NA | NA | |
| HGS | ||||||
| Czaja-Stolc et al., 2024 [22] (kg) | 33.1 ± 8.0 | 23.2 ± 10.5 | 28.6 ± 10.9 | NA | NR | <0.001 |
| Yasar et al., 2022 [20] (kg) | 30.1 ± 16.8 | 25.4 ± 8.5 | 22.0 ± 8.7 | 24.8 ± 12.0 | NA | 0.025 |
| Koito et al., 2021 [18](kg) | 28.5 ± 7.1 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Yildirim et al., 2022 [19] (kg) | 30.0 ± 11.5 | NR | NR | NR | 37.0 ± 13.2 | <0.001 |
| Małgorzewicz et al., 2016 [16] (kg) | 26.9 ± 7.6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Mean value (kg) | 29.7 ± 10.2 | 24.3 ± 9.5 | 25.3 ± 9.8 | 24.8 ± 12.0 | 37.0 ± 13.2 | |
| IMAC | ||||||
| Adachi et al., 2020 [17] | -0.39 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Lean Body Mass | ||||||
| Małgorzewicz et al., 2016 [16] (kg) | 49.2 ± 11.9 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| LTI | ||||||
| Czaja-Stolc et al., 2024 [22] (kg/m2) | 11.9 ± 2.0 | 11.6 ± 2.6 | 13.1 ± 2.4 | NA | NR | 0.007 |
| Małgorzewicz et al., 2016 [16] (kg/m2) | 14.2 ± 2.9 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Mean value (kg/m2) | 13.0 ± 2.4 | 11.6 ± 2.6 | 13.1 ± 2.4 | NA | NA | |
| MET | ||||||
| Koito et al., 2021 [18] (min/week) | 2021.5 ± 1737.7 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| PMI | ||||||
| Fujimoto et al., 2023 [21] (cm2/m2) | 8.1 ± 7.6 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Adachi et al., 2020 [17] | 3.4 (1 year after transplantation) 3.6 (5 years after transplantation) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| SMI | ||||||
| Koito et al., 2021 [18] (kg/m2) | 6.5 ± 0.8 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| sMI | ||||||
| Yildirim et al., 2022 [19] (kg/m2) | 18.3 ± 2.1 | NR | NR | NR | 18.0 ± 2.5 | 0.074 |
ASMI: Appendicular Skeletal Muscle Index, BMI: Body Mass Index, CKD: Chronic Kidney Disease, HGS: Handgrip Strength, KTRs: Kidney Transplant Recipients, LTI: Lean Tissue Index, MET: Metabolic Equivalents, NA: Not Applicable, NR: Not reported, PMI: Psoas Mass Index, SMI: Skeletal Mass Index, sMI: Smooth Muscle Index.
3.5. Biomarkers in KTRs
Overall, myostatin [18,20,22] and adiponectin [16,17,22] were evaluated in three studies, respectively (Table 6). The median serum adiponectin level across studies was 5.4 [2.4–8.7] µg/mL, while the corresponding median myostatin level was not calculated due to significant heterogeneity in measurement techniques and units for this biomarker. Leptin was investigated in two studies, with a median serum concentration of 13.3 [9.3–17.3] ng/mL [16,22]. Interleukin-6 (IL-6), also examined in two manuscripts, had a median value of 3.8 [3.3–4.4] pg/mL, but was not correlated with sarcopenia in KTRs (Table 8) [20,22].
Insulin growth factor 1 (IGF-1) [19], alpha-actinin-3 [21], brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) [18], and visfatin [16] were only assessed in one study each (Table 8). Therefore, no summary statistics could be computed for these biomarkers.
Table 8.
Results of biomarker analyses.
Table 8.
Results of biomarker analyses.
| Biomarker/Study | KTRs | Hemodialysis | Peritoneal Dialysis | Non-Dialysis Dependent CKD | Control Group (No Kidney Disease) | p-Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Myostatin | ||||||
| Czaja-Stolc et al., 2024 [22] (pg/mL) | 5558.6 ± 1771.9 | 3313.2 ± 1743.2 | 6391.8 ± 3088.4 | NA | 3683.0 ± 1460.3 | <0.001 * |
| Yasar et al., 2022 [20] (ng/mL) | 46.4 ± 21.6 | 378.0 ± 122.6 | 232.7 ± 97.6 | 318.8 ± 217.9 | NA | <0.001 |
| Koito et al., 2021 [18] (pg/mL) | 314.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Mean value (pg/mL) | NA ** | NA ** | NA ** | NA ** | 3683.0 ± 1460.3 | |
| Adiponectin | ||||||
| Czaja-Stolc et al., 2024 [22] (μg/mL) | 2.4 ± 2.2 | 5.8 ± 5.0 | 8.1 ± 6.1 | NA | 2.7 ± 2.0 | <0.001 * |
| Adachi et al., 2020 [17] (μg/mL) | 5.2 ± 2.8 (1 year after transplantation) 5.6 ± 3.6 (5 years after transplantation) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Małgorzewicz et al., 2016 [16] (mg/L) | 8.7 ± 20.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Mean value (μg/mL) | 5.5 ± 8.6 | NA | 8.1 ± 6.1 | NA | 2.7 ± 2.0 | |
| Leptin | ||||||
| Czaja-Stolc et al., 2024 [22] (ng/mL) | 9.3 ± 10.9 | 10.4 ± 12.3 | 18.4 ± 21.6 | NA | 8.1 ± 10.7 | 0.040 * |
| Małgorzewicz et al., 2016 [16] (μg/L) | 17.3 ± 20.5 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Mean value (ng/mL) | 13.3 ± 15. 7 | 10.4 ± 12.3 | 18.4 ± 21.6 | ΝA | 8.1 ± 10.7 | |
| IGF-1 | ||||||
| Yildirim et al., 2022 [19] (ng/mL) | 206.5 ± 88.0 | NR | NR | NR | 169.7 ± 53.6 | 0.029 |
| BDNF | ||||||
| Koito et al., 2021 [18] (ng/mL) | 16.8 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Alpha-actinin-3 (SNPs in ACTN3 gene) | ||||||
| Fujimoto et al., 2023 [21] (genotypes) | TT: 38.5% TC: 41.6% CC: 19.1% | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Visfatin | ||||||
| Małgorzewicz et al., 2016 [16] (μg/L) | 19.6 ± 4.7 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| IL-6 | ||||||
| Czaja-Stolc et al., 2024 [22] (pg/mL) | 3.3 ± 2.1 | 10.8 ± 9.3 | 7.6 ± 8.4 | NA | 1.4 ± 0.8 | <0.001 * |
| Yasar et al., 2022 [20] (pg/mL) | 4.4 ± 3.3 | 5.6 ± 3.2 | 6.7 ± 8.0 | 3.1 ± 3.3 | NA | 0.111 |
| Mean value (pg/mL) | 3.8 ± 2.7 | 8.2 ± 6.2 | 7.1 ± 8.2 | 3.1 ± 3.3 | 1.4 ± 0.8 | |
BDNF: Brain-derived Neurotrophic Factor, CKD: Chronic Kidney Disease, IGF-1: Insulin-like Growth Factor 1, IL-6: Interleukin 6, KTRs: Kidney Transplant Recipients, NA: Not Applicable, NR: Not reported, SNPs: Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms * The control group was not included in the p-value estimation in the study by Czaja-Stolc et al., ** Summary statistics could not be performed due to significant heterogeneity in measurement techniques.
4. Discussion
The present systematic review consolidates current evidence on the molecular and clinical features of sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity in renal transplantation. The included studies evaluated 548 KTRs with a median age of 44.3 years and a median dialysis duration of nearly three years prior to transplantation. This clinical profile likely suggests prolonged pre-transplant muscle loss and a reduced capacity for full post-transplant functional recovery.
Graft function appeared relatively preserved and nutritional markers such as serum albumin remained within stable ranges. However, metabolic parameters revealed subtle abnormalities. Median triglyceride levels were 154.4 mg/dL, total cholesterol reached 201.7 mg/dL, and BMI values (23.4 kg/m2) were clustered near the upper threshold of normal. These findings point toward persistent metabolic stress that may exacerbate muscular decline.
Functional assessments provided further insight. Of note, median handgrip strength was 30.0 kg, a value considered suboptimal given the predominantly male composition of the cohort [16]. Concurrently, the median body fat percentage was 31.1 percent, a finding consistent with increased adiposity [16]. This combination of diminished muscle strength and elevated fat mass supports the presence of sarcopenic obesity in our cohort.
4.1. Myostatin: Potential Associations
It should also be emphasized that the biomarker data presented in this review reveal a broad spectrum of molecular signatures with unique diagnostic utilities and relevance for targeted post-transplant monitoring and intervention strategies. As a starting point, we examined myostatin, a well-characterized myokine known to function as a potent inhibitor of skeletal muscle growth and maintenance. Myostatin binds to activin type II receptors and activates the SMAD (Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog) 2/3 signaling cascade, promoting expression of muscle degradation genes (atrogenes) while suppressing myogenic factors [23]. This action directly antagonizes the IGF-1 (insulin growth factor 1)/PI3K/Akt (Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/Protein kinase B) pathway, which promotes muscle protein synthesis [24].
Three studies evaluated the role of myostatin in sarcopenia following kidney transplantation [18,20,22]. First, Koito et al. found significantly higher serum myostatin levels in KTRs with reduced muscle mass compared to recipients with preserved muscle mass (362 pg/mL vs. 267 pg/mL, p = 0.024) [18]. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis yielded an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.69 for myostatin in identifying sarcopenia, with an optimal diagnostic cut-off value of 390 pg/mL. Importantly, a strong inverse correlation was observed between myostatin levels and METs in KTRs (r = −0.541, p < 0.001), suggesting that physical inactivity may contribute to elevated myostatin and subsequent muscle wasting [18].
In contrast, Yasar et al. reported the lowest serum myostatin levels in KTRs (46.4 ± 21.6 ng/mL) compared to patients on hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, or with non-dialysis-dependent CKD (378.0 ± 122.6 ng/mL, 232.8 ± 97.6 ng/mL, 318.8 ± 217.9 ng/mL, respectively; p < 0.001) [20]. Myostatin was also negatively correlated with handgrip strength (r = −0.203, p = 0.02) but did not correlate with ASMI (p = 0.35). Although only six KTRs were sarcopenic, myostatin independently predicted sarcopenia (OR 1.002, 95% CI: 1.001–1.005, p = 0.04) [20]. Interestingly, the authors hypothesized that immunosuppressive therapy may suppress myostatin production, potentially protecting against muscle loss. They also found a negative correlation between eGFR and myostatin levels (r = −0.626, p < 0.001), suggesting a link between graft function and muscle catabolism [20]. In summary, myostatin levels appear elevated in patients undergoing renal replacement therapy compared to those with non–dialysis-dependent CKD. Kidney transplantation tends to reduce myostatin levels and promote muscle mass recovery. Not-surprisingly, among transplant recipients, higher myostatin levels are associated with reduced muscle mass and sarcopenia.
4.2. Adiponectin: Potential Associations
Another relevant biomarker was adiponectin, an anti-inflammatory cytokine secreted by adipocytes and skeletal muscle, with well-established anti-atherogenic and insulin-sensitizing effects. Its levels typically decrease in obesity and rise with weight loss [25]. Mechanistically, adiponectin activates AMP (adenosine monophosphate)-activated protein kinase (AMPK), Sitruin-1 (SIRT1), and calcium-dependent pathways, which in turn stimulate PGC-1α (Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1-alpha), a key transcriptional coactivator involved in mitochondrial biogenesis and muscle metabolism [17].
Three studies explored the impact of adiponectin on muscle mass after renal transplantation [16,17,22]. In Małgorzewicz et al., mean adiponectin levels in KTRs were 8.7 ± 20.5 mg/L and negatively correlated with body fat (r = −0.18, p < 0.05), suggesting a protective metabolic profile against fat accumulation [16]. Adachi et al. investigated sarcopenia in 51 KTRs using psoas mass index and intramuscular adipose tissue content. PMI increased from 3.03 cm2/m2 pre-transplant to 3.36 at one year and 3.58 at five years. Interestingly, high molecular weight adiponectin correlated negatively with PMI at both one (r = −0.373, p = 0.007) and five years (r = −0.308, p = 0.028), and was independently associated with PMI reduction (β = −0.07, p = 0.003). These findings point to a paradoxical role of adiponectin, potentially contributing to muscle loss through effects on type II muscle fibers [17].
This apparent contradiction may reflect a compensatory upregulation of adiponectin in response to muscle wasting or metabolic stress. Alternatively, elevated levels might signal adipose tissue infiltration into muscle (myosteatosis), particularly of intermuscular fat, which secretes adiponectin locally. Furthermore, the differential roles of adiponectin isoforms—particularly the catabolic vs. anabolic signaling balance in type II muscle fibers—may contribute to sarcopenic phenotypes despite overall anti-inflammatory activity. Lastly, the observed correlation between low-molecular-weight adiponectin and eGFR changes (rs = −0.362, p = 0.009) points to pleiotropic involvement in both renal and muscular remodeling [17]. Further elucidation of these mechanisms could clarify whether adiponectin serves as a biomarker of sarcopenia, a mediator, or both.
4.3. Leptin: Potential Associations
We subsequently assessed leptin, an adipose-derived hormone that regulates appetite and promotes inflammation via Janus kinase/signal transducers and activators of transcription (JAK-STAT), Phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K), and Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathways [26]. It also contributes to muscle degradation via upregulation of tumor necrosis factor a (TNF-α), Interleukin-1 (IL-1), and Interleukin-6 (IL-6) [17].
The interplay of leptin with sarcopenic disorders in renal transplantation was evaluated by two studies [16,22]. In Małgorzewicz et al., 37.1% of the KTRs were overweight and 14.2% had obesity, with a mean leptin level of 17.3 ± 20.5 μg/L [16]. Leptin positively correlated with BMI and body fat (r = 0.5, p < 0.05) and negatively with lean mass (r = −0.5) and handgrip strength (r = −0.2, both p < 0.05), thereby supporting its role in sarcopenic obesity. Leptin also correlated negatively with eGFR (r = −0.3, p < 0.05), remaining significant in multivariate analysis, suggesting a link to graft dysfunction [16]. Similarly, Czaja-Stolc et al. reported significantly lower leptin levels in malnourished KTRs (7-Point Subjective Global Assessment < 5) compared to well-nourished individuals (8.8 ± 13.4 ng/mL vs. 13.3 ± 12.7 ng/mL; p = 0.04) [22]. Leptin also demonstrated the highest diagnostic accuracy for malnutrition among tested biomarkers (AUC = 0.69) [22].
4.4. Insulin Growth Factor 1: Potential Associations
Next, we sought to understand how IGF-1 affects the development of sarcopenic disorders in KTRs. IGF-1 is produced primarily by the liver and skeletal muscles, regulates growth hormone activity and promotes muscle protein synthesis via the PI3K/Akt/mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) and PI3K/Akt/GSK3β (Glycogen synthase kinase-3 beta) pathways [27,28]. IGF-1 also inhibits protein degradation by suppressing FoxO (Forkhead box O)-mediated ubiquitin ligases [28]. Yildirim et al. found significantly higher IGF-1 serum levels in 120 KTRs compared to 60 controls (206.5 ± 88.0 vs. 169.7 ± 53.6 ng/mL, p = 0.029) [19]. In this series, dynapenia was defined as HGS <26kg and <16 kg in men and women, respectively. In contrast, sarcopenia was defined as smooth muscle index (sMI)/BMI < 0.789 in men and <0.512 in women. Interestingly, IGF-1 was elevated in KTRs with normal muscle mass and handgrip strength (HGS) compared to those with dynapenia or sarcopenia (p = 0.037). Multivariate analysis also identified IGF-1 as an independent predictor of HGS (β = 2.314, p = 0.001), but not of muscle mass [19].
4.5. Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor: Potential Associations
BDNF is another cardinal mediator of sarcopenic disorders in KTRs. From a physiology standpoint, it is produced by both neurons and skeletal muscle, supports cognitive function, body mass regulation, and muscle regeneration via Tropomyosin receptor kinase B (TrkB) receptor–mediated pathways [29]. In Koito et al., KTRs with sarcopenia had significantly lower BDNF serum levels than their counterparts with normal muscle mass (15.7 ng/mL vs. 17.8 ng/mL, p = 0.013) [18]. Given that muscle contraction stimulates BDNF secretion, this reduction likely reflects diminished physical activity in sarcopenic patients. Notably, ROC analysis yielded an AUC of 0.712, with 17.8 ng/mL identified as the optimal BDNF threshold to diagnose sarcopenia. Furthermore, KTRs with low skeletal muscle index had significantly lower weekly METs than those with normal SMI (1504 ± 1183 vs. 2529 ± 2154 min/week, p = 0.001), and BDNF levels positively correlated with MET (r = 0.817, p < 0.001) [18]. These findings link physical activity to BDNF expression and underscore its potential utility in monitoring and guiding post-transplant rehabilitation.
4.6. Alpha-Actinin-3: Potential Associations
Alpha-actinin-3, encoded by the ACTN3 gene, is a structural protein localized to Z-lines in skeletal muscle sarcomeres and is critical for muscle contraction. To date, limited data have correlated ACTN3 with sarcopenic disorders in KTRs [30]. Most importantly, Fujimoto et al. investigated 65 KTRs and found that the CT and TT genotypes of the rs1815739 SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) in ACTN3 were significantly associated with decreased post-transplant psoas muscle index compared to the CC genotype (OR: 4.23, 95% CI: 0.05–0.97, p = 0.025) [21]. The T allele was more prevalent in KTRs with declining PMI (66.3% vs. 45.5%, OR: 2.34, p = 0.023). In contrast, delta PMI was significantly higher in CC genotype carriers compared to TT carriers (4.25 vs. −7.19, p = 0.023) [21]. Functionally, alpha-actinin-3 deficiency alters muscle metabolism, reducing glycogen phosphorylase activity and shifting fiber type composition toward slower, fatigue-resistant fibers, thereby compromising muscle strength. When combined with post-transplant immunosuppression, this genetic predisposition may accelerate sarcopenia in KTRs.
4.7. Visfatin: Potential Associations
Lastly, we explored the role of visfatin in the metabolomic and functional profile of KTRs. Visfatin is an adipokine secreted by intra-abdominal fat, with roles in adipogenesis and insulin-mimetic signaling [31]. Mechanistically, it promotes inflammation via IL-6, TNF-α, and IL-1β and may contribute to insulin resistance [31]. Małgorzewicz et al. reported a mean visfatin serum level of 19.6 ± 4.7 μg/L in KTRs, but found no association with BMI, body fat, or handgrip strength, suggesting limited utility as a sarcopenia marker [16]. Nevertheless, visfatin levels were positively correlated with eGFR (r = 0.3, p < 0.05), a finding confirmed on multivariate analysis, indicating potential value as a marker of renal graft function [16].
4.8. Strengths and Limitations
Methodological strengths of this review include (1) to our knowledge, the first comprehensive synthesis of biomarker associations with sarcopenia in kidney transplant recipients; (2) the use of a rigorous, systematic search strategy; (3) prior protocol registration in PROSPERO; and (4) standardized quality assessment across all included studies.
Nonetheless, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, only seven relatively small observational studies, stemming from three countries (Japan, Poland, Turkey), met inclusion criteria for data analysis. Second, the criteria used to define sarcopenia and sarcopenic obesity varied considerably across studies, and several did not quantify the exact number of renal transplant recipients affected by these conditions [16,17,18,21]. Third, while most studies focused on adult kidney transplant recipients, a few included both adult and pediatric populations without stratifying results by age. Similarly, the type of donor (living versus deceased) was inconsistently reported and not uniformly analyzed, potentially introducing clinical heterogeneity. Fourth, no data were available on key secondary outcomes such as quality of life or rehospitalization rates. Fifth, there was marked variability in the timing, methodology, and units of measurement for biomarker assessment, as well as inconsistent practices in biosample collection, storage, and calibration, which hindered comparability. Due to these multifaceted issues, a meaningful meta-analysis of anthropometric or biomarker outcomes was not feasible, and direct comparisons of individual biomarkers were limited by heterogeneity and data scarcity. Finally, although immunosuppressive therapy—particularly corticosteroids—has long been recognized as a major driver of post-transplant muscle catabolism, the included studies did not provide sufficient detail on the type, dose, duration, or cumulative exposure to these agents to permit stratified analyses. This limitation is notable given the differential mechanistic effects of commonly used immunosuppressants on muscle and adipose biology. Corticosteroids accelerate muscle atrophy through activation of the ubiquitin–proteasome pathway, whereas calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) promote myofibrosis and impair mitochondrial function—each of which could meaningfully alter circulating biomarker profiles and confound associations with sarcopenia. The absence of regimen-specific reporting limits interpretability and may partially underlie the heterogeneity observed across studies. Future biomarker investigations should systematically account for immunosuppression—particularly cumulative steroid exposure and CNI dosing—in order to more accurately delineate true biological relationships with muscle mass and function.
4.9. Future Directions
Future research should focus on validating these biomarker associations in larger, multicenter prospective cohorts of kidney transplant recipients. Integrating molecular profiling with functional and imaging-based assessments may offer prognostication benefits. Interventional studies targeting modifiable pathways, such as myostatin or adiponectin signaling, are warranted. Genetic screening, including ACTN3 variants, could inform personalized rehabilitation strategies. Ultimately, translating biomarker insights into clinical tools may improve long-term musculoskeletal and graft outcomes as well as overall quality of life.
5. Conclusions
This review highlights key biomarkers that could be potentially associated with sarcopenic disorders in kidney transplant recipients. Myostatin appears to be elevated in sarcopenic KTRs and inversely correlated with METs, handgrip strength, and eGFR. Adiponectin seems to demonstrate both protective metabolic effects and a paradoxical association with muscle loss and impaired graft function. Leptin levels have been correlated with sarcopenic obesity, reduced muscle function, and impaired graft performance. IGF-1 independently predicts handgrip strength but not muscle mass, emphasizing its relevance to muscle function over mass. BDNF levels seem to be reduced in sarcopenic patients and strongly associated with physical activity. Limited data suggest that ACTN3 polymorphisms may be associated with post-transplant muscle loss, indicating a genetic predisposition to sarcopenia. Visfatin does not appear to correlate with sarcopenic disorders but may positively track with eGFR, supporting its role in graft monitoring. Nevertheless, functional assessments remain the most reliable and validated clinical tools in this population. At this stage, molecular biomarkers may offer valuable mechanistic insight into muscle wasting processes and guide hypothesis generation, but further prospective validation is essential before their incorporation into biomarker-guided screening or therapeutic stratification.
Supplementary Materials
The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm14248943/s1, Figure S1. PRISMA flow diagram. Table S1. NHLBI Quality Assessment Scale for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, I.S., T.K. (Thomas Karagkounis), K.S.M., T.K. (Theofanis Kalathas), K.-A.P., A.K. and S.M.; Data curation, I.S., T.K. (Thomas Karagkounis), K.S.M. and T.K. (Theofanis Kalathas); Formal analysis, I.S., T.K. (Thomas Karagkounis) and K.S.M.; Investigation, I.S., T.K. (Thomas Karagkounis), K.S.M., T.K. (Theofanis Kalathas), K.-A.P., A.K. and S.M.; Methodology, I.S., T.K. (Thomas Karagkounis), K.S.M., T.K. (Theofanis Kalathas), K.-A.P., A.K. and S.M.; Project administration, I.S.; Resources, I.S., T.K. (Thomas Karagkounis), K.S.M. and T.K. (Theofanis Kalathas); Software, I.S., T.K. (Thomas Karagkounis), K.S.M. and T.K. (Theofanis Kalathas); Supervision, S.M.; Validation, I.S., T.K. (Thomas Karagkounis), K.S.M. and T.K. (Theofanis Kalathas); Visualization, I.S., T.K. (Thomas Karagkounis), K.S.M. and T.K. (Theofanis Kalathas); Writing—original draft, I.S.; Writing—review and editing, I.S., T.K. (Thomas Karagkounis), K.S.M., T.K. (Theofanis Kalathas), K.-A.P., A.K. and S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
Raw data may be provided by the authors upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
- Gandolfini, I.; Regolisti, G.; Bazzocchi, A.; Maggiore, U.; Palmisano, A.; Piotti, G.; Fiaccadori, E.; Sabatino, A. Frailty and Sarcopenia in Older Patients Receiving Kidney Transplantation. Front. Nutr. 2019, 6, 169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bakinowska, E.; Olejnik-Wojciechowska, J.; Kiełbowski, K.; Skoryk, A.; Pawlik, A. Pathogenesis of Sarcopenia in Chronic Kidney Disease-The Role of Inflammation, Metabolic Dysregulation, Gut Dysbiosis, and microRNA. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 8474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zhang, J.Z.; Shi, W.; Zou, M.; Zeng, Q.S.; Feng, Y.; Luo, Z.Y.; Gan, H.T. Diagnosis, prevalence, and outcomes of sarcopenia in kidney transplantation recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2023, 14, 17–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Tantisattamo, E.; Kalantar-Zadeh, K.; Halleck, F.; Duettmann, W.; Naik, M.; Budde, K. Novel approaches to sarcopenic obesity and weight management before and after kidney transplantation. Curr. Opin. Nephrol. Hypertens. 2021, 30, 14–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, D.; Robinson, L.; Selinski, C.; Bajakian, T.; Mejia, C.; Harhay, M.N. Physical Function in Kidney Transplantation: Current Knowledge and Future Directions. Curr. Transplant. Rep. 2020, 7, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paris, M.T.; Bell, K.E.; Mourtzakis, M. Myokines and adipokines in sarcopenia: Understanding cross-talk between skeletal muscle and adipose tissue and the role of exercise. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 2020, 52, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, J.; Liang, Y.; Sun, P.; Fang, X.; Sun, Q. Molecular and Cellular Mechanisms Linking Chronic Kidney Disease and Sarcopenia in Aging: An Integrated Perspective. Clin. Interv. Aging 2025, 20, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lentine, K.L.; Axelrod, D.; Abbott, K.C. Interpreting body composition in kidney transplantation: Weighing candidate selection, prognostication, and interventional strategies to optimize health. Clin. J. Am. Soc. Nephrol. 2011, 6, 1238–1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morgan, R.L.; Whaley, P.; Thayer, K.A.; Schünemann, H.J. Identifying the PECO: A framework for formulating good questions to explore the association of environmental and other exposures with health outcomes. Environ. Int. 2018, 121, 1027–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pincus, T.; Miles, C.; Froud, R.; Underwood, M.; Carnes, D.; Taylor, S.J. Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials: A consensus study. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2011, 11, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hozo, S.P.; Djulbegovic, B.; Hozo, I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2005, 5, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Higgins, J.P.T.; Thomas, J.; Chandler, J.; Cumpston, M.; Li, T.; Page, M.J.; Welch, V.A. (Eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; Cochrane: London, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
- National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI). Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Available online: https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-topics/study-quality-assessment-tools (accessed on 15 May 2025).
- Małgorzewicz, S.; Dębska-Slizień, A.; Czajka, B.; Owczarzak, A.; Rutkowski, B. Influence of Body Mass on Kidney Graft Function in Patients After Kidney Transplantation. Transplant. Proc. 2016, 48, 1472–1476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Adachi, H.; Fujimoto, K.; Fujii, A.; Yamasaki, K.; Okada, K.; Matsuura, T.; Okino, K.; Furuichi, K.; Yokoyama, H. Long-term retrospective observation study to evaluate effects of adiponectin on skeletal muscle in renal transplant recipients. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 10723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koito, Y.; Yanishi, M.; Kimura, Y.; Tsukaguchi, H.; Kinoshita, H.; Matsuda, T. Serum Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor and Myostatin Levels Are Associated with Skeletal Muscle Mass in Kidney Transplant Recipients. Transplant. Proc. 2021, 53, 1939–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yildirim, S.; Colak, T.; Bayraktar, N.; Sezer, S. Evaluation of Dynapenia and Sarcopenia and Their Associations with Serum Insulin-Like Growth Factor-1 Levels in Renal Transplant Recipients. J. Ren. Nutr. 2022, 32, 354–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yasar, E.; Tek, N.A.; Tekbudak, M.Y.; Yurtdaş, G.; Gülbahar, Ö.; Uyar, G.; Ural, Z.; Çelik, Ö.M.; Erten, Y. The Relationship Between Myostatin, Inflammatory Markers, and Sarcopenia in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease. J. Ren. Nutr. 2022, 32, 677–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujimoto, T.; Hyodo, Y.; Ishimura, T.; Tashiro, Y.; Endo, T.; Nisioka, S.; Yokoyama, N.; Yamamoto, K.; Yano, I.; Fujisawa, M. Association of Alpha-Actinin-3 Polymorphism with Sarcopenia in Kidney Transplant Recipients. Transplant. Proc. 2023, 55, 824–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czaja-Stolc, S.; Chatrenet, A.; Potrykus, M.; Ruszkowski, J.; Torreggiani, M.; Lichodziejewska-Niemierko, M.; Dębska-Ślizień, A.; Piccoli, G.B.; Małgorzewicz, S. Adipokines and Myokines as Markers of Malnutrition and Sarcopenia in Patients Receiving Kidney Replacement Therapy: An Observational, Cross-Sectional Study. Nutrients 2024, 16, 2480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, S.; Patil, A.S. Myostatin’s marvels: From muscle regulator to diverse implications in health and disease. Cell Biochem. Funct. 2024, 42, e4106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Elkina, Y.; von Haehling, S.; Anker, S.D.; Springer, J. The role of myostatin in muscle wasting: An overview. J. Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2011, 2, 143–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yan, Y.; Wang, L.; Zhong, N.; Wen, D.; Liu, L. Multifaced roles of adipokines in endothelial cell function. Front. Endocrinol. 2024, 15, 1490143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Paz-Filho, G.; Mastronardi, C.; Franco, C.B.; Wang, K.B.; Wong, M.L.; Licinio, J. Leptin: Molecular mechanisms, systemic pro-inflammatory effects, and clinical implications. Arq. Bras. Endocrinol. Metabol. 2012, 56, 597–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Samerria, S.; Radovick, S. The Role of Insulin-like Growth Factor-1 (IGF-1) in the Control of Neuroendocrine Regulation of Growth. Cells 2021, 10, 2664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yoshida, T.; Delafontaine, P. Mechanisms of IGF-1-Mediated Regulation of Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy and Atrophy. Cells 2020, 9, 1970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rentería, I.; García-Suárez, P.C.; Fry, A.C.; Moncada-Jiménez, J.; Machado-Parra, J.P.; Antunes, B.M.; Jiménez-Maldonado, A. The Molecular Effects of BDNF Synthesis on Skeletal Muscle: A Mini-Review. Front. Physiol. 2022, 13, 934714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kikuchi, N.; Yoshida, S.; Min, S.K.; Lee, K.; Sakamaki-Sunaga, M.; Okamoto, T.; Nakazato, K. The ACTN3 R577X genotype is associated with muscle function in a Japanese population. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2015, 40, 316–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Catalán, V.; Gómez-Ambrosi, J.; Rodríguez, A.; Ramírez, B.; Silva, C.; Rotellar, F.; Cienfuegos, J.A.; Salvador, J.; Frühbeck, G. Association of increased visfatin/PBEF/NAMPT circulating concentrations and gene expression levels in peripheral blood cells with lipid metabolism and fatty liver in human morbid obesity. Nutr. Metab. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2011, 21, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).