Journal of Applied Physiology Ad Instruments
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Appl Physiol 104: 1251, 2008; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00024.2008
8750-7587/08 $8.00
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thomis, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thomis, M.

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Commentary on Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescription

TO THE EDITOR: Interestingly, Dr. Roth (4) poses a "gene profile"-based personalized exercise prescription strategy, with delayed exercise prescription following non-lifestyle intervention in individuals with adverse response profiles. Some remarks that might need consideration: variability in training responses is only partially genetic. The design of a useful set of "adverse" or "positive" (interacting) alleles or haplotypes still needs a large amount of (confirmatory) work in family-based or large population-based association studies in healthy subjects and patients. An example of the latter is the CAREGENE study (2) that aims to identify genetic variability in cardiorespiratory rehabilitation responses in coronary artery disease patients. Genome-wide association studies, differential gene-expression profiles, copy number variation analysis (5), and epi genetic differences (3) between positive-adverse response groups might guide us in this effort. However, in any human exercise and/or rehabilitation study, dietary and other influential factors need to be standardized/controlled to exclude adverse effects based on confounders.

Identification of causal "adverse exercise response genes" might feed people's ideas of external, non-changeable causality, identifying themselves as "genetic" nonexercisers. As behavioral change is highly challenged in sedentary subjects, careful communication on adverse genetic profiles and useful exercise prescription as a (delayed) intervention for other health-related phenotypes is needed. Activity levels are likely related to (dis-)liking exercise, personality characteristics, and perception of exercise benefits, and these might themselves be regulated by genetic profiles (1) that act pleiotrophic on other health risk phenotypes.

Application of differential genetic screening strategies also implies physicians to assess and monitor the exercise response of their patients and necessitates a close cooperation with exercise professionals.

FOOTNOTES


Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: M. Thomis, Dept. of Biomedical Kinesiology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium B-3001 (e-mail: martine.thomis{at}faber.kuleuven.be)

REFERENCES

  1. Beunen G, Thomis M. Genetic determinants of sports participation and daily physical activity. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 23: S55–63, 1999.[CrossRef][Web of Science]
  2. Defoor J, Martens K, Zielinska D, Matthijs G, Van Nerum H, Schepers D, Fagard R, Vanhees L. The CAREGENE study: polymorphisms of the beta1-adrenoceptor gene and aerobic power in coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 27: 808–816, 2006.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Poulsen P, Esteller M, Vaag A, Fraga MF. The epigenetic basis of twin discordance in age-related diseases. Pediatr Res 61: 38R–42R, 2007.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
  4. Roth SM. Viewpoint: Perspective on the future use of genomics in exercise prescription. J Appl Physiol; doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.01000.2007.[Free Full Text]
  5. Stranger BE, Forrest MS, Dunning M, Ingle CE, Beazley C, Thorne N, Redon R, Bird CP, de Grassi A, Lee C, Tyler-Smith C, Carter N, Scherer SW, Tavaré S, Deloukas P, Hurles ME, Dermitzakis ET. Relative impact of nucleotide and copy number variation on gene expression phenotypes. Science 9: 848–53, 2007.

Martine Thomis
 Department of Biomedical Kinesiology, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium





This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Thomis, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thomis, M.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the American Physiological Society.