Special Issue "Muscle Damage and Regeneration"

A special issue of Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology (ISSN 2411-5142).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 July 2017).

Special Issue Editors

Prof. Dr. José Peña-Amaro
E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Morphological Sciences, Histology Section, Faculty of Medicine, University of Córdoba, Maimónides Institute for Biomedical Research, Avenida Menéndez Pidal s/n, Córdoba 14071, Spain
Interests: skeletal muscle; muscle regeneration; muscle histology; muscle histochemistry; muscle ultrastructure; muscle pathology
Prof. Dr. Mark Willems
E-Mail Website
Co-Guest Editor
Department of Sport and Exercise Sciences, University of Chichester, Chichester, UK
Interests: muscle function; fatigue; exercise physiology; training; sports nutrition; muscle damage; aging, eccentric contractions

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

Although conditioned by the type of damage, skeletal muscles have a high capacity to regenerate after injury. This phenomenon of muscle regeneration is clinically important for several reasons. First, because muscle regeneration is part of the pathology of some muscular diseases, and of traumatic and sports injuries. Second, understanding the mechanisms of muscle damage and the different phases of the regenerative / reparative process is prerequisite to acting on the process and properly assessing its evolution through imaging techniques, such as ultrasound and MRI. And third, muscle regeneration is the basis for understanding and developing different therapeutic strategies, especially those that fall within the area of regenerative medicine: the stimulation of regenerative capacity, cell therapy, and tissue engineering.

Muscle regeneration is therefore an area of basic and clinical research that receives much attention from different points of view and that concerns not only to researchers, but also neurologists, rheumatologists, radiologists, rehabilitators, physiotherapists, kinesiologists, and physical educators. For this Special Issue, “Muscle Damage and Regeneration”, authors are invited to submit original research papers and current review articles on this field.

Prof. Dr. José Peña-Amaro
Prof. Dr. Mark Willems
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Journal of Functional Morphology and Kinesiology is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1000 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • muscle damage
  • muscle injury
  • muscle regeneration
  • satellite cells
  • myopathies
  • muscle tissue engineering
  • muscle exercise
  • muscle fibrosis
  • muscle precursors cells

Published Papers (3 papers)

Order results
Result details
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Open AccessArticle
Low-Intensity Vibration Improves Muscle Healing in a Mouse Model of Laceration Injury
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2018, 3(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk3010001 - 21 Dec 2017
Cited by 1
Abstract
Recovery from traumatic muscle injuries is typically prolonged and incomplete, leading to impaired muscle and joint function. We sought to determine whether mechanical stimulation via whole-body low-intensity vibration (LIV) could (1) improve muscle regeneration and (2) reduce muscle fibrosis following traumatic injury. C57BL/6J [...] Read more.
Recovery from traumatic muscle injuries is typically prolonged and incomplete, leading to impaired muscle and joint function. We sought to determine whether mechanical stimulation via whole-body low-intensity vibration (LIV) could (1) improve muscle regeneration and (2) reduce muscle fibrosis following traumatic injury. C57BL/6J mice were subjected to a laceration of the gastrocnemius muscle and were treated with LIV (0.2 g at 90 Hz or 0.4 g at 45 Hz for 30 min/day) or non-LIV sham treatment (controls) for seven or 14 days. Muscle regeneration and fibrosis were assessed in hematoxylin and eosin or Masson’s trichrome stained muscle cryosections, respectively. Compared to non-LIV control mice, the myofiber cross-sectional area was larger in mice treated with each LIV protocol after 14 days of treatment. Minimum fiber diameter was also larger in mice treated with LIV of 90 Hz/0.2 g after 14 days of treatment. There was also a trend toward a reduction in collagen deposition after 14 days of treatment with 45 Hz/0.4 g (p = 0.059). These findings suggest that LIV may improve muscle healing by enhancing myofiber growth and reducing fibrosis. The LIV-induced improvements in muscle healing suggest that LIV may represent a novel therapeutic approach for improving the healing of traumatic muscle injuries. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Muscle Damage and Regeneration)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Effects of Stochastic Resonance on Sensorimotor Performance during Exercise-Induced Muscle Damage
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2017, 2(2), 16; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk2020016 - 16 May 2017
Cited by 1
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the effects of stochastic resonance (SR) stimulation on sensorimotor performance during an episode of exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD). Thirty four men (age: 21.3 (±2.6) years; height 1.78 (±0.06) m; body mass 72.3 (±7.4) kg (mean [...] Read more.
The aim of this study was to assess the effects of stochastic resonance (SR) stimulation on sensorimotor performance during an episode of exercise-induced muscle damage (EIMD). Thirty four men (age: 21.3 (±2.6) years; height 1.78 (±0.06) m; body mass 72.3 (±7.4) kg (mean (±SD)) gave their informed consent to participate in this study.Sensorimotor performance (error in replicating a target force) of the knee flexors was assessed prior to, and at 0.5 and 48 h after (i) a treatment condition involving a single-leg EIMD conditioning of the non-preferred leg, with concomitant responses to (ii) randomised presentation of SR, no SR and placebo conditions. Results showed a significant ANOVA interaction for sensorimotor performance amongst factors of condition (control period; EIMD), time (pre; post 0.5 h; post 48 h) and stimuli (SR; no SR; placebo) (F[1.5,29.3] = 5.7; p < 0.01). While scores during an antecedent control period had remained relatively constant, the EIMD protocol had elicited increased error in replicating a target force for the knee flexors of the non-preferred leg over time (worsened sensorimotor performance) that had been most prominent at 48 h after exercise, but whose negative effects had been ameliorated under conditions of SR (5.6 ± 3.1% (no SR) versus 3.7 ± 2.3% (SR) (pre) and 10.3 ± 4.2% (no SR) versus 8.1 ± 5.1% (SR) (48 h), respectively; F[1,36] = 6.0; p < 0.01). In conclusion, this study has shown that SR conditioning-related increases in the sensorimotor performance of the hamstring muscle group led to some protection from performance loss following EIMD. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Muscle Damage and Regeneration)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle
Mesenchymal Stem Cells Improve Muscle Function Following Single Stretch Injury: A Preliminary Study
J. Funct. Morphol. Kinesiol. 2016, 1(4), 396-406; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfmk1040396 - 15 Dec 2016
Cited by 1
Abstract
Stem cells have shown promise as a therapeutic intervention by enhancing skeletal muscle regeneration following muscle injury. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of mouse mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) on muscle function following a single stretch injury in the [...] Read more.
Stem cells have shown promise as a therapeutic intervention by enhancing skeletal muscle regeneration following muscle injury. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of mouse mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) on muscle function following a single stretch injury in the calf muscle of C57BL/67 mice. A custom isokinetic device was used to induce a single stretch injury. An intramuscular injection of MSCs or saline was administered three days post-injury. Mechanical testing to measure peak isometric joint torque in vivo was done immediately and at seven or 14 days post-injury. Susceptibility to reinjury was assessed in the soleus muscle using an in situ repeated eccentric contraction (ECC) protocol. In vivo isometric torque of the plantar flexors dropped immediately following stretch injury by 50%. Treatment with MSCs attenuated the torque deficit at seven days, while there were no differences in torque deficit between groups at 14 days. In situ ECC testing of the soleus showed a significant specific force drop following injury, with the MSC group demonstrating a protective effect at seven and 14 days. These results demonstrate transient improvement in isometric torque and reduced susceptibility to reinjury following single stretch injury with intramuscular injection of MSCs. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Muscle Damage and Regeneration)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop