Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescription
2007; American Physiological Society; Volume: 104; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1152/japplphysiol.01000.2007
ISSN8750-7587
Autores Tópico(s)Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
ResumoVIEWPOINTPerspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescriptionStephen M. RothStephen M. RothPublished Online:01 Apr 2008https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01000.2007This is the final version - click for previous versionMoreSectionsPDF (59 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailWeChat the study of the importance of genomic factors in the responses and adaptations of health-related traits to exercise stimuli has increased dramatically over the past 10 years (3, 25). One rationale underlying the work is that by understanding the genomic factors (e.g., DNA sequence variants) important for the responses of various phenotypes to exercise interventions, clinicians will one day be able to “individualize” exercise prescription, much as genomics is being considered for inclusion in typical medical care. Although the future use of genomic information in general medical treatment is not certain (8, 11, 22), a unique concern for the use of genomics in exercise prescription is whether such use is reasonable given the existing recommendations that all individuals perform regular exercise. With physical activity known to be important across a wide variety of systems with impacts on overall morbidity and mortality, how can genomic factors be used to improve our ability to administer exercise interventions? This Viewpoint seeks to address some of these issues, although it will not address the important idea that genomic studies will meaningfully contribute to identifying important physiological pathways (7, 16) underlying exercise responses and adaptations.That genomic factors are important to the responses and adaptations of a variety of phenotypes to exercise stimuli has been shown in multiple studies and strides have been made in identifying specific contributing genes (3, 25). As any exercise scientist can argue, however, exercise training is a potent means of improving a wide range of health-related phenotypes; in effect, it acts as an across-systems, synergistic stimulus that tends to improve virtually all such phenotypes (31). But this consensus about the importance of exercise as a general therapeutic tool argues against the importance of genomic screening for exercise prescription: if exercise is useful as a therapy in nearly all contexts, then what is the usefulness of genomic screening in advance of such therapy?This viewpoint of physical activity as an all-powerful, minimal side-effect intervention is generally valid, and for most individuals there is little apparent utility in individualized exercise prescription incorporating genomic factors. Rather, individualized exercise prescription may be important for certain people requiring intervention for specific target or at-risk phenotypes. For example, as shown in Fig. 1, individual adaptations for a variety of phenotypes to a typical exercise intervention (e.g., ACSM guidelines, etc.) have been shown in several studies to be either positive, neutral, or negative (1, 2, 4, 13, 17, 19, 27, 30). Three typical scenarios can be envisioned for any individual seeking to improve or treat a health-related trait (e.g., blood pressure, insulin sensitivity, etc.) with exercise training: a genomic profile consistent with 1) a positive adaptation of a phenotype; 2) no adaptation (i.e., nonresponder); or 3) a negative or adverse adaptation.In scenario 1, the individual's genomic profile is consistent with a positive response to an exercise intervention, making it likely that non-lifestyle therapies (e.g., medication) can be substantially reduced from the treatment plan. Scenario 1 provides minimal rationale for genomic screening, as lifestyle factors should already be the first line of prescription regardless of genotype, although this does not appear to be typical for most physicians (9, 10). Whether genomic information would provide a motivating factor for participation and adherence is an open question (20, 21).In scenarios 2 and 3 we see improved rationale for the use of genomic screening. In scenario 2, a nonresponse of the target phenotype to a typical exercise prescription, healthcare providers would have the advantage of being able to target non-exercise therapies (e.g., diet, medication) for the phenotype of interest at the outset of treatment. The incorporation of exercise into the treatment plan would still be expected, as it will provide numerous benefits for other non-targeted phenotypes and no apparent negative risk for the target phenotype. In scenario 3, we see an important deviation, one not often considered within the exercise science community: a genomic profile consistent with an adverse response of the target phenotype to exercise. In this case, exercise prescription early in this patient's care could result in an adverse effect on the phenotype, thus delaying or worsening the desired outcome. Scenario 3 is arguably controversial and the author makes the important point that exercise prescription is delayed, not ignored. The key point is that in this scenario, exercise presents an increased risk. The delay of exercise treatment in favor of other interventions would provide the highest level of care, with a later introduction of carefully monitored exercise for its more general health benefits. The emphasis for both scenarios 2 and 3 is on a particular target or at-risk phenotype. In fact, while an individual may have a negative response to exercise for one phenotype, there is little evidence to suggest that other phenotypes will show similar negative responses for that person, as has been seen in data from HERITAGE (24) and other large cohorts (personal communication, J. Hagberg).Much work remains before determining the utility of the proposed use of genomic screening for scenarios 2 and 3. One argument is that the number of susceptible people will be small. Depending on the definition of neutral and negative responses, as many as 45% of individuals may fall into scenarios 2 and 3 (as is seen in Fig. 1), although smaller fractions are more likely. If even only a small fraction of individuals (5–15%) has an adverse response of a target phenotype to an exercise intervention, then there is considerable rationale for delaying such a prescription until that phenotype is stabilized. In no way is this an argument against the use of exercise as a standard of care, but rather for the careful incorporation of such prescription to maximize treatment for specific individuals.Another key issue is whether the specific genomic factors that contribute to various phenotypes will have large or small effects, as well as being commonly carried in a population (23). Although debate continues in the genomics community, common genomic factors with major impact are predicted to be identified for complex disease phenotypes (32). More importantly, complex combinations of genomic and environmental factors will ultimately contribute the larger, clinically significant influences on a particular trait, and identifying those combinations is the goal. Of course, if neutral or negative phenotype responses can only be predicted by complex interactions of many genomic and environmental factors with small independent effects, the likelihood of clinical utility will be small. Those traits with less-complex genomic etiologies or major contributing genes, perhaps “intermediate traits” such as biomarkers, will emerge as stronger targets for future clinical use. That different types of exercise prescription [e.g., modes (aerobic vs. strength training), intensities, frequencies, etc.] will undoubtedly have different interactive effects with genomic factors will further complicate this work. In addition, existing studies of phenotype variability have been performed primarily in healthy individuals, while genomic screening for exercise prescription implies targeted risk analysis in diseased individuals. Whether the extensive response and adaptation variability seen in healthy populations to exercise training will translate to diseased populations has not been fully tested, although existing data indicate similar variability between healthy and diseased humans (6, 18).In presenting evidence for the potential importance of genomic factors in exercise prescription, we must not neglect the overwhelming evidence for the importance of environmental factors in disease prevention and treatment. Clearly, population-wide behavioral and lifestyle measures to improve disease risk have the greatest ability to improve public health. That said, genomic factors do contribute to individual disease risk across a number of traits and use of such information is already being used as a means of improving individual patient outcomes in some areas (14, 15). So, while there are many obstacles yet to surmount before genomic medicine becomes a reality (8, 11, 22), we can anticipate that future screening for genomic factors predicted to result in an adverse response of an at-risk phenotype to exercise prescription can improve treatment in susceptible patients. Preliminary findings in the areas of exercise and insulin sensitivity (5, 28, 29) and exercise and obesity (12, 26) suggest that such genomic factors are being identified. While we await additional discoveries, exercise should certainly remain the first line of prescription for the many phenotypes positively impacted by this important treatment; however, we can recognize that this standard of care is not optimal for some patients and envision the future application of genomic information to improve and individualize exercise prescription. Fig. 1.Individual data points, ordered along the X-axis, for the adaptation of various glucose metabolism variables to 20 wk of aerobic exercise training in the HERITAGE Family Study (5). A: insulin sensitivity (Si; mean: 10% increase); B: acute insulin response to glucose (AIRg mean: 3% decrease); C: glucose effectiveness (Sg mean: 11% increase); and D: glucose disappearance index (Kg mean: 3% increase). A number of subjects in all figures show adverse adaptations to the exercise stimulus (indicated by a minus sign on each figure). The subjects are 596 healthy men and women with average age ∼35 yr (range 17–65 yr) who were previously sedentary. The training program gradually progressed to an intensity of 75% of initial V̇o2max, which was maintained for the final 6 wk. Reprinted with permission from The American Diabetes Association (5).Download figureDownload PowerPointREFERENCES1 Bamman MM, Petrella JK, Kim JS, Mayhew DL, Cross JM. Cluster analysis tests the importance of myogenic gene expression during myofiber hypertrophy in humans. J Appl Physiol 102: 2232–2239, 2007.Link | ISI | Google Scholar2 Baylor LS, Hackney AC. Resting thyroid and leptin hormone changes in women following intense, prolonged exercise training. Eur J Appl Physiol 88: 480–484, 2003.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar3 Bouchard C, Malina RM, Perusse L. Genetics of Fitness and Physical Performance. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1997.Google Scholar4 Bouchard C, Rankinen T. Individual differences in response to regular physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 33: S446–S451, 2001.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar5 Boule NG, Weisnagel SJ, Lakka TA, Tremblay A, Bergman RN, Rankinen T, Leon AS, Skinner JS, Wilmore JH, Rao DC, Bouchard C. Effects of exercise training on glucose homeostasis: the HERITAGE Family Study. Diabetes Care 28: 108–114, 2005.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar6 Brown MD, Dengel DR, Hogikyan RV, Supiano MA. Sympathetic activity and the heterogenous blood pressure response to exercise training in hypertensives. J Appl Physiol 92: 1434–1442, 2002.Link | ISI | Google Scholar7 Burke W. Genomics as a probe for disease biology. N Engl J Med 349: 969–974, 2003.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar8 Burke W, Psaty BM. Personalized medicine in the era of genomics. JAMA 298: 1682–1684, 2007.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar9 Chakravarthy MV, Joyner MJ, Booth FW. An obligation for primary care physicians to prescribe physical activity to sedentary patients to reduce the risk of chronic health conditions. Mayo Clin Proc 77: 165–173, 2002.Crossref | Google Scholar10 Dauenhauer JA, Podgorski CA, Karuza J. Prescribing exercise for older adults: a needs assessment comparing primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants. Gerontol Geriatr Educ 26: 81–99, 2006.Google Scholar11 Grossman I. Routine pharmacogenetic testing in clinical practice: dream or reality? Pharmacogenomics 8: 1449–1459, 2007.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar12 Grove ML, Morrison A, Folsom AR, Boerwinkle E, Hoelscher DM, Bray MS. Gene-environment interaction and the GNB3 gene in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. Int J Obes 31: 919–926, 2007.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar13 Hubal MJ, Gordish-Dressman H, Thompson PD, Price TB, Hoffman EP, Angelopoulos TJ, Gordon PM, Moyna NM, Pescatello LS, Visich PS, Zoeller RF, Seip RL, Clarkson PM. Variability in muscle size and strength gain after unilateral resistance training. Med Sci Sports Exerc 37: 964–972, 2005.PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar14 Hughes DA, Pirmohamed M. Warfarin pharmacogenetics: economic considerations. Pharmacoeconomics 25: 899–902, 2007.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar15 Husain A, Loehle JA, Hein DW. Clinical pharmacogenetics in pediatric patients. Pharmacogenomics 8: 1403–1411, 2007.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar16 Khoury MJ, Davis R, Gwinn M, Lindegren ML, Yoon P. Do we need genomic research for the prevention of common diseases with environmental causes? Am J Epidemiol 161: 799–805, 2005.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar17 Kohrt WM, Malley MT, Coggan AR, Spina RJ, Ogawa T, Ehsani AA, Bourey RE, Martin WH 3rd, Holloszy JO. Effects of gender, age, and fitness level on response of V̇o2max to training in 60–71 yr olds. J Appl Physiol 71: 2004–2011, 1991.Link | ISI | Google Scholar18 Koufaki P, Nash PF, Mercer TH. Assessing the efficacy of exercise training in patients with chronic disease. Med Sci Sports Exerc 34: 1234–1241, 2002.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar19 Leon AS, Gaskill SE, Rice T, Bergeron J, Gagnon J, Rao DC, Skinner JS, Wilmore JH, Bouchard C. Variability in the response of HDL cholesterol to exercise training in the HERITAGE Family Study. Int J Sports Med 23: 1–9, 2002.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar20 Lerman C, Croyle RT, Tercyak KP, Hamann H. Genetic testing: psychological aspects and implications. J Consult Clin Psychol 70: 784–797, 2002.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar21 Marteau TM, Lerman C. Genetic risk and behavioural change. Br Med J 322: 1056–1059, 2001.Crossref | Google Scholar22 McGuire AL, Cho MK, McGuire SE, Caulfield T. Medicine. The future of personal genomics. Science 317: 1687, 2007.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar23 Pritchard JK. Are rare variants responsible for susceptibility to complex diseases? Am J Hum Genet 69: 124–137, 2001.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar24 Rankinen T, Bouchard C. Chapter 22: Genetic differences in the relationships among physical activity, fitness, and health. In: Physical Activity and Health, edited by Bouchard C, Blair SN, and Haskell WL. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2007.Google Scholar25 Rankinen T, Bray MS, Hagberg JM, Perusse L, Roth SM, Wolfarth B, Bouchard C. The human gene map for performance and health-related fitness phenotypes: the 2005 update. Med Sci Sports Exerc 38: 1863–1888, 2006.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar26 Rankinen T, Rice T, Leon AS, Skinner JS, Wilmore JH, Rao DC, Bouchard C. G protein beta 3 polymorphism and hemodynamic and body composition phenotypes in the HERITAGE Family Study. Physiol Genomics 8: 151–157, 2002.Link | ISI | Google Scholar27 Shinkai S, Watanabe S, Asai H, Shek PN. Cortisol response to exercise and post-exercise suppression of blood lymphocyte subset counts. Int J Sports Med 17: 597–603, 1996.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar28 Teran-Garcia M, Rankinen T, Koza RA, Rao DC, Bouchard C. Endurance training-induced changes in insulin sensitivity and gene expression. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 288: E1168–E1178, 2005.Link | ISI | Google Scholar29 Teran-Garcia M, Rankinen T, Rice T, Leon AS, Rao DC, Skinner JS, Bouchard C. Variations in the four and a half LIM domains 1 gene (FHL1) are associated with fasting insulin and insulin sensitivity responses to regular exercise. Diabetologia 50: 1858–1866, 2007.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar30 Timmons JA, Larsson O, Jansson E, Fischer H, Gustafsson T, Greenhaff PL, Ridden J, Rachman J, Peyrard-Janvid M, Wahlestedt C, Sundberg CJ. Human muscle gene expression responses to endurance training provide a novel perspective on Duchenne muscular dystrophy. FASEB J 19: 750–760, 2005.Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar31 Umnova MM, Seene TP. The effect of increased functional load on the activation of satellite cells in the skeletal muscle of adult rats. Int J Sports Med 12: 501–504, 1991.Crossref | ISI | Google Scholar32 Yang Q, Khoury MJ, Friedman J, Little J, Flanders WD. How many genes underlie the occurrence of common complex diseases in the population? Int J Epidemiol 34: 1129–1137, 2005.Crossref | ISI | Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESAddress for reprint requests and other correspondence: S. M. Roth, Dept. of Kinesiology, School of Public Health, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742 (e-mail: [email protected]) Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformationCited ByDo ACE and CKMM gene variations have potent effects on physical performance in inactive male adolescents?1 February 2019 | Molecular Biology Reports, Vol. 46, No. 2Maintenance of exercise training benefits is associated with adequate milk and dairy products intake in elderly hypertensive subjects following detrainingEinstein (São Paulo), Vol. 15, No. 3The influence of participant characteristics on the relationship between cuff pressure and level of blood flow restriction27 May 2016 | European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 116, No. 7High Responders and Low Responders: Factors Associated with Individual Variation in Response to Standardized Training8 May 2014 | Sports Medicine, Vol. 44, No. 8Genetics and sport performance: current challenges and directions to the futureRevista Brasileira de Educação Física e Esporte, Vol. 28, No. 1Human genetic variation: New challenges and opportunities for doping controlJournal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 30, No. 11Genetics of muscle strength and power: Polygenic profile similarity limits skeletal muscle performanceJournal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 29, No. 13Book reviewsApplied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, Vol. 36, No. 4AKT1 G205T genotype influences obesity-related metabolic phenotypes and their responses to aerobic exercise training in older Caucasians4 January 2011 | Experimental Physiology, Vol. 96, No. 3The Role of Genetic Variation in Muscle Strength19 November 2010 | American Journal of Lifestyle Medicine, Vol. 5, No. 2MicroRNAs: playing a big role in explaining skeletal muscle adaptation?Stephen M. Roth1 February 2011 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 110, No. 2A Synopsis of Exercise Genomics Research and a Vision for its Future Translation into Practice10 February 2011Using genetic tests for talent identification in sports: too soon to be trueJournal of Pediatric Endocrinology and Metabolism, Vol. 24, No. 7-8Variable number of tandem repeat polymorphisms of the interleukin-1 receptor antagonist gene IL-1RN: a novel association with the athlete status22 February 2010 | BMC Medical Genetics, Vol. 11, No. 1Genetic architecture of voluntary exercise in an advanced intercross line of miceScott A. Kelly, Derrick L. Nehrenberg, Jeremy L. Peirce, Kunjie Hua, Brian M. Steffy, Tim Wiltshire, Fernando Pardo-Manuel de Villena, Theodore Garland, and Daniel Pomp1 July 2010 | Physiological Genomics, Vol. 42, No. 2Research in the Exercise SciencesExercise and Sport Sciences Reviews, Vol. 38, No. 2Relationship between circulating progenitor cells, vascular function and oxidative stress with long-term training and short-term detraining in older men16 November 2009 | Clinical Science, Vol. 118, No. 4CNTF 1357 G → A polymorphism and the muscle strength response to resistance trainingSean Walsh, Bethany K. Kelsey, Theodore J. Angelopoulos, Priscilla M. Clarkson, Paul M. Gordon, Niall M. Moyna, Paul S. Visich, Robert F. Zoeller, Richard L. Seip, Steve Bilbie, Paul D. Thompson, Eric P. Hoffman, Thomas B. Price, Joseph M. Devaney, and Linda S. Pescatello1 October 2009 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 107, No. 4Genetic research and testing in sport and exercise science: A review of the issuesJournal of Sports Sciences, Vol. 27, No. 11Tuning of mitochondrial pathways by muscle work: from triggers to sensors and expression signaturesThis paper is one of a selection of papers published in this Special Issue, entitled 14th International Biochemistry of Exercise Conference – Muscles as Molecular and Metabolic Machines, and has undergone the Journal’s usual peer review process.Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, Vol. 34, No. 3The genetic tidal wave finally reached our shores: Will it be the catalyst for a critical overhaul of the way we think and do science?Mental Health and Physical Activity, Vol. 1, No. 2Commentary on Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescriptionEma C. Brito, and Paul W. Franks1 April 2008 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 104, No. 4Commentary on Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescriptionJ. Timothy Lightfoot1 April 2008 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 104, No. 4Commentary on Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescriptionJames A. Timmons1 April 2008 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 104, No. 4Commentary on Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescriptionMartine Thomis1 April 2008 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 104, No. 4Commentary on Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescriptionBernd Wolfarth1 April 2008 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 104, No. 4Commentary on Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescriptionJohn A. Hawley1 April 2008 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 104, No. 4Last Word on Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescriptionStephen M. Roth1 April 2008 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 104, No. 4Commentary on Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescriptionPeter D. Wagner1 April 2008 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 104, No. 4Commentary on Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescriptionLinda S. Pescatello1 April 2008 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 104, No. 4 More from this issue > Volume 104Issue 4April 2008Pages 1243-1245 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2008 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01000.2007PubMed18048588History Published online 1 April 2008 Published in print 1 April 2008 Metrics
Referência(s)