Talk:Permeabilized muscle fibers
From Bioblast
Revision as of 09:55, 24 March 2012 by Gnaiger Erich (talk | contribs) (Created page with "== Are permeabilized fibres a valid model? == === Unquestionable: Pfi are a well tested and highly useful model === : I am not surprised with your conclusion at this stage that...")
Are permeabilized fibres a valid model?
Unquestionable: Pfi are a well tested and highly useful model
- I am not surprised with your conclusion at this stage that Pfi may not provide an optimum model for studies of ROS production especially because we have to work with such high 02 levels. But without doubt, Pfi experiments have a great value to predict athletic abilities, to detect subclinical myopathies and recently, I had convincing results in horses confirmed for a genetic defect causing exertional myopathies. A most interesting aspect was that (1) we get these results before the conformation of the genetic disorder, and (2) for one of these horses (with a history of exercise intolerance), the “standard” exercise test did not reveal the existing myopathy.
- Dominique Votion - MiPNet Lab BE (2012-03-23)
Add to the discussion
- I have gone to the Bioblast page and read with interest the posting about the applicability of permeabilized myofibers for ROS measurements. One thing I would like to know is if there is room for a response on the Bioblast page? In particular, we have found that mitochondrial isolation markedly potentiates mitochondrial ROS generation relative to permeabilized myofibers (Picard et al., PLoS One 2011). As such, I would be interested to know how the ROS production in the mitochondria obtained using the PBI-Shredder compares to that observed in permeabilized myofibers before concluding either way whether this newer method is superior to permeabilized myofibers.
- Russel. T. Hepple - MiPNet Lab CA (2012-03-23)
