Produção Nacional
Revisado por pares
Comment on “Cores of Reproducibility in Physiology (CORP): quantification of human skeletal muscle carnosine concentration by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy”
2021; American Physiological Society; Volume: 131; Issue: 5 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1152/japplphysiol.00573.2021
ISSN8750-7587
AutoresVinicius da Eira Silva, Joseph J. Matthews, Bruno Gualano, Vítor de Salles Painelli, Maria Concepción García Otaduy, Craig Sale, Guilherme Giannini Artioli,
Tópico(s)Free Radicals and Antioxidants
ResumoLetter to the EditorComment on “Cores of Reproducibility in Physiology (CORP): quantification of human skeletal muscle carnosine concentration by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy”Vinicius da Eira Silva, Joseph Matthews, Bruno Gualano, Vitor de Salles Painelli, Maria Concepción Otaduy, Craig Sale, and Guilherme Giannini ArtioliVinicius da Eira SilvaDepartment of Biomedical Physiology and Kinesiology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, Canada, Joseph MatthewsSport, Health, and Performance Enhancement Research Centre, Musculoskeletal Physiology Research Group, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United KingdomDepartment of Sport and Exercise, Research Centre for Life and Sport Sciences, School of Health and Life Sciences, Birmingham City University, Birmingham, United Kingdom, Bruno GualanoApplied Physiology and Nutrition Research Group, School of Physical Education and Sport, Rheumatology Division, Faculdade de Medicina FMUSP, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil, Vitor de Salles PainelliStrength Training Study and Research Group, Institute of Health Sciences, Paulista University, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Maria Concepción OtaduyLIM44-Laboratory of Magnetic Resonance in Neuroimaging; Department of Radiology and Oncology, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, Craig SaleSport, Health, and Performance Enhancement Research Centre, Musculoskeletal Physiology Research Group, School of Science and Technology, Nottingham Trent University, Nottingham, United Kingdom, and Guilherme Giannini ArtioliDepartment of Life Sciences, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United KingdomPublished Online:12 Nov 2021https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00573.2021MoreSectionsPDF (241 KB)Download PDFDownload PDFPlus ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInEmail to the editor: Lievens and colleagues (1) discussed the validity of using 1H-MRS to quantify human muscle carnosine in vivo. We commend the authors for their desire to improve muscle carnosine determination using 1H-MRS while highlighting the need for more comprehensive and transparent reporting. But in our judgment some statements in the paper need revision.According to the authors (1), 1H-MRS can be validated in two ways: 1) by supplementation of β-alanine and 2) by comparing with high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) of a muscle tissue biopsy. However, any test must meet other criteria to be valid, including adequate reproducibility (i.e., low test-retest variation), accuracy (i.e., similarity with an external gold-standard reference), and an ability to discriminate knowingly different groups or conditions. Although 1H-MRS discriminates increases in carnosine in response to β-alanine supplementation (2–4), there are concerns about the reproducibility and accuracy of the method (5).Lievens et al. (1) state that our group (5) and others (6) “struggle” to produce reliable measurements, implying that the method is valid and reliable by definition and that measurement errors are due to the inappropriate application of the technique. However, no valid evidence to support these statements is provided. We quantified muscle carnosine with 1H-MRS (5) using the same procedures as previously described (7) and showed poor agreement between 1H-MRS and a reference method. Lievens et al. (1) suggested that this could be explained by the small voxel size used in our study, leading to a lower signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). Noteworthy, all our 41 measurements displayed an SNR above their proposed (7) cut-off of SNR > 3 (SNR: 7.1 ± 2.4, min = 3.5, max = 14.2), meaning that voxel size does not account for the poor validity of 1H-MRS shown in our study. We chose a smaller voxel size to fit our participants’ gastrocnemius without contaminating with surrounding tissues, thus improving shimming and avoiding artifacts.Large variation in 1H-MRS carnosine results has been reported by several groups (6), including studies conducted by the same research group (8) as Lievens et al. (1). Chung et al. (8) reported discrepantly large mean and individual increases in gastrocnemius and soleus muscle carnosine (143 ± 147% and 161 ± 60%, respectively) in response to β-alanine supplementation. Notably, one individual showed an implausible increase of more than 600%, which is incompatible with the literature (9, 10). This is compounded by variability in muscle carnosine in their placebo group (8), where carnosine increased 25 ± 40% and 18 ± 24%, suggesting problems with test-retest reliability. Thus, issues with the method itself rather than with specific research groups seem more likely.Although we are optimistic that the authors’ proposed initiatives (1) will promote better practices with 1H-MRS and improve data quality, the standardization they propose requires further systematic investigation to confirm that they improve overall validity. Other practices, such as reporting individual data and spectrum, SNR, and carnosine peak width will help to promote transparency. We maintain, like Lievens et al. (1), that the 1H-MRS determination of muscle carnosine concentrations is important in the field of human physiology, but only if it is shown to be valid and reliable.DISCLOSURESNo conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise, are declared by the authors.AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSV.d.E.S., J.M., B.G., V.d.S.P., M.C.O., C.S., and G.G.A. drafted manuscript; V.d.E.S., J.M., B.G., V.d.S.P., M.C.O., C.S., and G.G.A. edited and revised manuscript; V.d.E.S., J.M., B.G., V.d.S.P., M.C.O., and G.G.A. approved final version of manuscript.REFERENCES1. Lievens E, Van Vossel K, Van de Casteele F, Krššák M, Murdoch JB, Befroy DE, Derave W. CORP: quantification of human skeletal muscle carnosine concentration by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. J Appl Physiol (1985) 131: 250–264, 2021. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00056.2021. Link | ISI | Google Scholar2. Baguet A, Reyngoudt H, Pottier A, Everaert I, Callens S, Achten E, Derave W. Carnosine loading and washout in human skeletal muscles. J Appl Physiol (1985) 106: 837–842, 2009. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.91357.2008. Link | ISI | Google Scholar3. Baguet A, Bourgois J, Vanhee L, Achten E, Derave W. Important role of muscle carnosine in rowing performance. J Appl Physiol (1985) 109: 1096–1101, 2010. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00141.2010. Link | ISI | Google Scholar4. Blancquaert L, Everaert I, Missinne M, Baguet A, Stegen S, Volkaert A, Petrovic M, Vervaet C, Achten E, De Maeyer M, De Henauw S, Derave W. Effects of histidine and β-alanine supplementation on human muscle carnosine storage. Med Sci Sports Exerc 49: 602–609, 2017. doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000001213. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar5. da Eira Silva V, Painelli VS, Shinjo SK, Ribeiro Pereira W, Cilli EM, Sale C, Gualano B, Otaduy MC, Artioli GG. Magnetic resonance spectroscopy as a non-invasive method to quantify muscle carnosine in humans: a comprehensive validity assessment. Sci Rep 10: 4908, 2020. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-61587-x. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar6. Black MI, Jones AM, Morgan PT, Bailey SJ, Fulford J, Vanhatalo A. The effects of β-alanine supplementation on muscle pH and the power-duration relationship during high intensity exercise. Front Physiol 9: 111, 2018. doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.00111. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar7. Ozdemir MS, Reyngoudt H, De Deene Y, Sazak HS, Fieremans E, Delputte S, D'Asseler Y, Derave W, Lemahieu I, Achten E. Absolute quantification of carnosine in human calf muscle by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Phys Med Biol 52: 6781–6794, 2007. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/52/23/001. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar8. Chung W, Baguet A, Bex T, Bishop DJ, Derave W. Doubling of muscle carnosine concentration does not improve laboratory 1-hr cycling time-trial performance. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab 24: 315–324, 2014. doi:10.1123/ijsnem.2013-0125. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar9. Rezende NS, Swinton P, de Oliveira LF, da Silva RP, da Eira Silva V, Nemezio K, Yamaguchi G, Artioli GG, Gualano B, Saunders B, Dolan E. The muscle carnosine response to beta-alanine supplementation: a systematic review with Bayesian individual and aggregate data e-max model and meta-analysis. Front Physiol 11: 913, 2020. doi:10.3389/fphys.2020.00913. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google Scholar10. Spelnikov D, Harris RC. A kinetic model of carnosine synthesis in human skeletal muscle. Amino Acids 51: 115–121, 2019. doi:10.1007/s00726-018-2646-z. Crossref | PubMed | ISI | Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESCorrespondence: G. G. Artioli (g.giannini.[email protected]ac.uk). Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformationRelated articlesCORP: quantification of human skeletal muscle carnosine concentration by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy 18 Jul 2021Journal of Applied PhysiologyReply to da Eira Silva et al. 12 Nov 2021Journal of Applied PhysiologyCited ByReply to da Eira Silva et al.Eline Lievens and Wim Derave12 November 2021 | Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 131, No. 5 More from this issue > Volume 131Issue 5November 2021Pages 1613-1614 Crossmark Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2021 the American Physiological Society.https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00573.2021PubMed34766837History Received 9 August 2021 Accepted 4 October 2021 Published online 12 November 2021 Published in print 1 November 2021 Keywordsbufferingcarnosinemuscle physiologynutritionsports sciencePDF download Metrics Downloaded 393 times
Referência(s)