Low intensity, high frequency vibration training to improve musculoskeletal function in a mouse model of volumetric muscle loss

Hoffman, Daniel B.; Schifino, Albino G.; Cooley, Marion A.; Zhong, Roger X.; Heo, Junwon; Morris, Courtney M.; Campbell, Matthew J.; Warren, Gordon L.; Greising, Sarah M.; Call, Jarrod A.

Affiliations

¹School of Kinesiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA

²Department of Kinesiology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

³Department of Oral Biology and Diagnostic Sciences, Dental College of Georgia, August University, Augusta, Georgia, USA

⁴Department of Neuroscience and Regenerative Medicine, Augusta University, Augusta, Georgia, USA

⁵Department of Physiology & Pharmacology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

⁶Department of Physical Therapy, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA

⁷Regenerative Bioscience Center, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, USA

Abstract and keywords

This study's objective was to investigate the extent to which two different levels of low-intensity vibration training (0.6 g or 1.0 g) affected musculoskeletal structure and function after a volumetric muscle loss (VML) injury in male C57BL/6J mice. All mice received a unilateral VML injury to the posterior plantar flexors. Mice were randomized into a control group (no vibration; VML-noTX), or one of two experimental groups. The two experimental groups received vibration training for 15-min/day, 5-days/week for 8 weeks at either 0.6 g (VML-0.6 g) or 1.0 g (VML-1.0 g) beginning 3-days after induction of VML. Muscles were analyzed for contractile and metabolic adaptations. Tibial bone mechanical properties and geometric structure were assessed by a three-point bending test and microcomputed tomography (µCT). Body mass-normalized peak isometric-torque was 18% less in VML-0.6 g mice compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.030). There were no statistically significant differences of vibration intervention on contractile power or muscle oxygen consumption (p ≥ 0.191). Bone ultimate load, but not stiffness, was ~16% greater in tibias of VML-1.0 g mice compared with those from VML-noTx mice (p = 0.048). Cortical bone volume was ~12% greater in tibias of both vibration groups compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.003). Importantly, cross-section moment of inertia, the primary determinant of bone ultimate load, was 44% larger in tibias of VML-0.6 g mice compared with VML-noTx mice (p = 0.006). These changes indicate that following VML, bones are more responsive to the selected vibration training parameters than muscle. Vibration training represents a possible adjuvant intervention to address bone deficits following VML.

Keywords: bone weakness; mitochondria; muscle injury; rehabilitation

Links

DOI: 10.1002/jor.26023

PubMed: 39610268

WoS: 001367025900001

History

Received: 2024-08-15

Revised: 2024-10-04

Accepted: 2024-10-31

Cited Works (12)

Year	Entry
2023	Ziemkiewicz N, Au J, Chauvin HM, Garg K. Electrically stimulated eccentric contraction training enhances muscle mass, function, and size following volumetric muscle loss. J Orthop Res. December 2023;41(12):2588-2598.
1997	Fritton JC, Rubin CT, Qin Y-X, McLeod KJ. Whole-body vibration in the skeleton: development of a resonance-based testing device. Ann Biomed Eng. September–October 1997;25(5):831-839.
2004	Ward K, Alsop C, Caulton J, Rubin C, Adams J, Mughal Z. Low magnitude mechanical loading is osteogenic in children with disabling conditions. J Bone Miner Res. March 2004;19(3):360-369.
2001	Rubin C, Turner AS, Bain S, Mallinckrodt C, McLeod K. Low mechanical signals strengthen long bones. Nature. August 9, 2001;412(6847):603-604.
1978	Uhthoff HK, Jaworski ZF. Bone loss in response to long-term immobilisation. J Bone Joint Surg. August 1978;60B(3):420-429.
2006	Xie L, Jacobson JM, Choi ES, Busa B, Donahue LR, Miller LM, Rubin CT, Judex S. Low-level mechanical vibrations can influence bone resorption and bone formation in the growing skeleton. Bone. November 2006;39(5):1059-1066.
2002	Rubin C, Turner AS, Mallinckrodt C, Jerome C, Mcleod K, Bain S. Mechanical strain, induced noninvasively in the high-frequency domain, is anabolic to cancellous bone, but not cortical bone. Bone. March 2002;30(3):445-452.
2001	Rubin C, Xu G, Judex S. The anabolic activity of bone tissue, suppressed by disuse, is normalized by brief exposure to extremely low‐magnitude mechanical stimuli. FASEB J. October 2001;15(12):2225-2229.
2002	Rubin C, Turner AS, Müller R, Mittra E, McLeod K, Lin W, Qin Y. Quantity and quality of trabecular bone in the femur are enhanced by a strongly anabolic, noninvasive mechanical intervention. J Bone Miner Res. February 2002;17(2):349-357.
2006	Gilsanz V, Wren TAL, Sanchez M, Dorey F, Judex S, Rubin C. Low‐level, high‐frequency mechanical signals enhance musculoskeletal development of young women with low bmd. J Bone Miner Res. September 2006;21(9):1464-1474.
2024	Schifino AG, Cooley MA, Zhong RX, Heo J, Hoffman DB, Warren GL, Greising SM, Call JA. Tibial bone strength is negatively affected by volumetric muscle loss injury to the adjacent muscle in male mice. J Orthop Res. January 2024;42(1):123-133.
2004	Rubin C, Recker R, Cullen D, Ryaby J, McCabe J, McLeod K. Prevention of postmenopausal bone loss by a low‐magnitude, high‐frequency mechanical stimuli: a clinical trial assessing compliance, efficacy, and safety. J Bone Miner Res. March 2004;19(3):343-351.