Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Comparative Analysis of Muscle Fibers in Selected Muscles of Working and Companion Dog Breeds
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Comparative Analysis of Muscle Fibers in Selected Muscles of Working and Companion Dog Breeds
Do you wish to request the book?
Comparative Analysis of Muscle Fibers in Selected Muscles of Working and Companion Dog Breeds
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Comparative Analysis of Muscle Fibers in Selected Muscles of Working and Companion Dog Breeds
2024
Overview
The structural and functional characteristics of skeletal muscle fibers play a crucial role in understanding the physical capabilities of dogs, particularly in relation to their breed-specific roles. This study aimed to compare the muscle fiber composition of working and companion dog breeds by analyzing the triceps brachii and biceps femoris muscles, focusing on fiber morphology, myosin heavy chain (MYH) isoform distribution, and nuclei per fiber. A total of 12 dogs, divided equally into working and companion breed groups, were used in this study. Muscle samples were collected post-mortem and prepared for histological analysis using cryosectioning. Immunohistochemical staining was employed to identify the expression of MYH isoforms, including MYH2, MYH4, and MYH7, which correspond to type IIa, IIb, and type I fibers, respectively. The results demonstrated significant differences between the two breed groups. Working dogs exhibited larger muscle fibers, a higher proportion of type IIa (MYH2) and type I (MYH7) fibers, and a greater number of nuclei per fiber, suggesting adaptations for endurance and strength. In contrast, companion dogs showed a higher proportion of type IIb (MYH4) fibers, indicative of their capacity for short bursts of activity rather than sustained exertion. Companion breeds also displayed a higher fiber density but fewer nuclei per fiber, which may contribute to slower muscle regeneration. These findings may provide insights into the muscle adaptations of dogs based on their breed-specific functional demands and highlight the importance of considering these differences in veterinary care and rehabilitation. The study underscores the influence of selective breeding on muscle structure and function in dogs and suggests further research into breed-specific muscle recovery mechanisms.
