Back

Overactive PDGFRα and PDGFRβ promote distinct yet overlapping phenotypes of skeletal muscle fibrosis and stiffness, with PDGFRβ also driving drastic muscle growth

Gimla, M.; Olszewski, S.; Brown, J. L.; Raymond-Pope, C. J.; Rigsby, S.; Peelor, F. F.; Kwon, H. R.; Yao, L.; Olson, L. E.; Fuqua, J. D.; Miller, B. F.

2026-01-02 physiology
10.64898/2026.01.02.697406 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Fibrosis accumulates in skeletal muscle over time and leads to greater muscle rigidity, stiffness, and increased risk of injuries. However, investigations of experimental models to study the mechanisms through which muscle fibrosis occurs are often confounded by injury or disease. The contribution of platelet-derived growth factor receptors alpha and beta (PDGFR or PDGFR{beta}) to muscle fibrosis is yet to be clarified. We hypothesized that both receptors would promote ECM deposition and fibrosis, causing muscle stiffening and weakness, with sex-specific differences arising due to hormonal influences on receptors. Methods: To test this hypothesis, we used a mouse model with inducible overactive PDGFR or PDGFR{beta} signaling and assessed various indicators of muscle function, metabolism, motor coordination, exercise capacity, collagen deposition, and muscle stiffness. Results: Overactive PDGFR led to more collagen deposition, increased collagen crosslinking, and higher AGE/LOX protein levels, all of which correlated with greater muscle stiffness compared to CON. Overactive PDGFR{beta} resulted in greater muscle mass and lower fat mass, and had higher collagen deposition in female mice compared to CON. There were also sex-specific differences with fibrotic remodeling, muscle stiffness, and muscle size in response to overactive PDGFR and PDGFR{beta} signaling. Conclusion: These findings establish PDGFR and PDGFR{beta} signaling as distinct regulators of muscle remodeling and establish overactive PDGFR as a mouse model to study skeletal muscle fibrosis in the absence of other confounding variables.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.