PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14686095

Microarray technology--the future analyses tool in exercise physiology?

Abstract

Microarray analysis offers a set of analytical platforms that provide rapid, affordable and substantial information at the DNA, RNA or protein level. It enables the analysis of thousands of genes simultaneously in a parallel manner across samples derived from various biological sources and treatment regimens. This development became possible as a result of the combination of three technological advances achieved at the beginning of the 1990's, namely parallelism, miniaturization and automation. In regular physical checkups the microarray technology could be used to supplement the current spectrum of tests and therefore enhance the quality of the data obtained. Arrays for analyses of RNA expression will allow gene expression profiling also in exercise physiology. DNA chips may also be used for genetic screening and diagnostics to analyze polymorphisms and mutations which may underlie genetic diseases or interindividual variations between subjects. Using microarrays in exercise physiology will provide new insights into the complex molecular mechanisms of the exercise-induced stress response, adaptation to training and modulation of immune function. Gene expression profiling and genetic screening will probably help to characterize and predict the individually variable response to and efficiency of training.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E Fehrenbach, D Zieker, A M Niess, E Moeller, S Russwurm, H Northoff. 2003. Microarray technology--the future analyses tool in exercise physiology?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14686095/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Current knowledge about physiotherapeutic strategies in osteoporosis prevention and treatment.

In treating patients with osteoporosis, one option in physiotherapy is to comply with given physical norms by using physical stimuli to influence biological functions and structures (bone, muscle) for adaptation, stimulation, and regeneration. Serial physical stimuli can also be used for interventions and actions to minimise pain perception by means of biopsychosocial influence. In osteoporosis, physiotherapy has to be rated on a par with pharmacotherapy with respect to prevention, cure, and rehabilitation. Generally, two different aims can be defined: (1) those which can be achieved with physical therapy alone, such as structural improvement of the existing and pharmacologically increased bone tissue, slowing down of round-back formation, and fall prophylaxis and (2) those which can be achieved with physiotherapy and pharmacotherapy, such as effective pain relief and increased bone density. Regulation and normalisation of physical capacities with an aim towards maintenance and economisation of functions and improvement in abilities call for a skillful and case-specific use of physiotherapy.

Exercise↗

Back schools for non-specific low-back pain.

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of the Swedish back school in 1969, back schools have frequently been used for treating patients with low-back pain (LBP). However, the content of back schools has changed and appears to vary widely today. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of back schools for patients with non-specific LBP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to May 2003 for relevant trials reported in English, Dutch, French or German. We also screened references from relevant reviews and included trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported on any type of back school for non-specific LBP were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four reviewers, blinded to authors, institution and journal, independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of the trials. We set the high quality level, a priori, at a trial meeting six or more of 11 internal validity criteria. As data were clinically and statistically too heterogeneous to perform a meta-analysis, we used a qualitative review (best evidence synthesis) to summarize the results. The evidence was classified into four levels (strong, moderate, limited or no evidence), taking into account the methodological quality of the studies. We also evaluated the clinical relevance of the studies. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen RCTs (3584 patients) were included in this updated review. Overall, the methodological quality was low, with only six trials considered to be high quality. It was not possible to perform relevant subgroup analyses for LBP with radiation versus LBP without radiation. The results indicate that there is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools have better short and intermediate-term effects on pain and functional status than other treatments for patients with recurrent and chronic LBP. There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools for chronic LBP in an occupational setting, are more effective than other treatments and placebo or waiting list controls on pain, functional status and return to work during short and intermediate-term follow-up. In general, the clinical relevance of the studies was rated as insufficient. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate evidence suggesting that back schools, in an occupational setting, reduce pain, and improve function and return-to-work status, in the short and intermediate-term, compared to exercises, manipulation, myofascial therapy, advice, placebo or waiting list controls, for patients with chronic and recurrent LBP. However, future trials should improve methodological quality and clinical relevance and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of back schools.

Exercise↗