We would firstly like to confirm that our eNOS−/− mice (Wadley et al. 2007) were indeed from a background generated by Shesely et al. (1996) and we apologise for any confusion this may have caused. We agree there seems to be distinct differences in strain between eNOS−/− mice generated from Huang et al. (1995) and Shesely et al. (1996) backgrounds. Nisoli et al. have shown quite comprehensively that mitochondrial biogenesis is reduced under basal conditions in a number of tissues in eNOS−/− mice generated from the Huang et al. (1995) background (Nisoli et al. 2003, 2004). We also feel that accurate consideration of methodological aspects between studies will contribute to a better understanding and discussion of the relevance of eNOS on basal (and exercise-induced) mitochondrial biogenesis. Indeed, the work by Ojaimi et al. (2005), showing decreased PGC-1α in the heart of very old (21 months) eNOS−/− mice from the Shesely et al. (1996) background, also showed a greater decline in exercise capacity with ageing compared with wildtype mice. So it is possible that mitochondrial biogenesis is impaired with ageing in eNOS−/− mice more than wildtype mice. Thus, caution should be taken when making comparisons between our findings in 16-week-old eNOS−/− mice and the 21-month-old mice used by Ojaimi et al. (2005). Very recently, Le Gouill et al. (2007) observed reduced mitochondrial protein and DNA content and lower beta oxidation in skeletal muscle of eNOS−/− mice generated from the Shesely et al. (1996) background, which would also suggest reduced basal skeletal muscle mitochondrial biogenesis, although unfortunately we do not know the age of these mice, so again direct comparison between our findings and those of Le Gouill et al. is difficult. However, it is highly unlikely that our observation of no impairments in basal mitochondrial biogenesis in the skeletal muscle of our eNOS−/− mice could be due to measurement error. This is because we analysed all strains of mice (contol (CON), eNOS−/− and nNOS−/−) together and we were able to detect altered basal mitochondrial biogenesis in the nNOS−/− mice and exercise-induced mitochondrial biogenesis in all strains of mice (Wadley et al. 2007). We do not agree that it has previously been demonstrated that mitochondrial biogenesis is markedly reduced in eNOS−/− mice under exercise conditions. Previous research is this area is quite limited and unclear. Prior to our study no previous study had examined the effect of an acute bout of exercise on mitochondrial biogenesis markers. In addition, the only study to examine the effect of exercise training on skeletal muscle of eNOS−/− was difficult to interpret (Momken et al. 2004). For instance, Momken et al. found that not only did citrate synthase (CS) activity not increase with exercise training (voluntary treadmill running) in either the eNOS−/− or the wildtype mice, but cytochrome c oxidase (COX) activity actually decreased with voluntary wheel running (Momken et al. 2004). Furthermore, basal COX protein expression and CS activity were not impaired in the eNOS−/− mice. They did not measure markers of mitochondrial biogenesis (i.e. PGC-1α, NRF1, NRF2, mtTFA). Also, voluntary wheel running may not be the ideal exercise protocol for these experiments, since eNOS−/− mice ran significantly less (about half) than their wildtype controls and thus the exercise was not matched between groups. To our knowledge, ours is the first study to measure markers of mitochondrial biogenesis in skeletal muscle of eNOS−/− (and nNOS−/−) mice following exercise and we clearly observe normal increases in skeletal muscle PGC-1α mRNA following acute exercise in mice that have no detectable eNOS protein (Wadley et al. 2007). Furthermore, we have previously shown that pharmacologically blocking all NOS isoforms with the non-specific NOS inhibitor, l-NAME, does not prevent increased skeletal muscle PGC-1α mRNA following acute exercise in rats (Wadley & McConell, 2007). Thus, we feel it is unlikely that NO is involved in exercise-induced mitochondrial biogenesis in skeletal muscle. In conclusion, we agree further work is required to investigate the differences in strain between eNOS−/− mice generated from the Huang et al. (1995) and Shesely et al. (1996) backgrounds on basal mitochondrial biogenesis. Careful consideration needs to be taken regarding methodological differences (i.e. age, body fatness, etc.), since this could impact on the interpretation of results. However, given our recent findings of normal exercise-induced mitochondrial biogenesis in both eNOS−/− mice (Wadley et al. 2007) and in rats treated with l-NAME (Wadley & McConell, 2007) we feel it is unlikely that eNOS has a direct role in exercise-induced mitochondrial biogenesis.
Read full abstract