Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesNarrative ReviewEurope PMCOpen access

Skeletal Muscle Regeneration in Cardiotoxin-Induced Muscle Injury Models

Wang Y., Lu J., Liu Y.

Narrative Review on Systemic / IV, published in Int J Mol Sci (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Narrative Review
Journal
Int J Mol Sci (2022)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
36362166
PMCID
PMC9657523
DOI
10.3390/ijms232113380
Citations
64

Abstract (original English)

Skeletal muscle injuries occur frequently in daily life and exercise. Understanding the mechanisms of regeneration is critical for accelerating the repair and regeneration of muscle. Therefore, this article reviews knowledge on the mechanisms of skeletal muscle regeneration after cardiotoxin-induced injury. The process of regeneration is similar in different mouse strains and is inhibited by aging, obesity, and diabetes. Exercise, microcurrent electrical neuromuscular stimulation, and mechanical loading improve regeneration. The mechanisms of regeneration are complex and strain-dependent, and changes in functional proteins involved in the processes of necrotic fiber debris clearance, M1 to M2 macrophage conversion, SC activation, myoblast proliferation, differentiation and fusion, and fibrosis and calcification influence the final outcome of the regenerative activity.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence
Muscle, SkeletalMacrophagesAnimalsMiceMuscular DiseasesAgingCardiotoxins

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research