Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2025 Jul 17;20(7):e0328485. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328485

Cellular repressor of E1A-stimulated genes 1 enhances skeletal muscle performance through the stimulation of muscle differentiation and Akt-mTOR signaling pathway activation

Ayumi Goto 1,2,*, Michihiro Hashimoto 3, Sho Yokogawa 2, Yuzu Naruse 2, Hitoshi Yamashita 2
Editor: Keisuke Hitachi4
PMCID: PMC12270121  PMID: 40674409

Abstract

Cellular repressor of E1A-stimulated genes 1 (CREG1), a glycoprotein secreted by various cell types, plays a crucial role in cellular differentiation and energy metabolism. While previous research has linked CREG1 deficiency in skeletal muscles to impaired exercise capacity and altered muscle fiber-type composition, its specific role in skeletal muscle function and differentiation remains unclear. In this study, we investigated the impact of CREG1 on muscle performance and fiber-type composition in adipocyte P2-CREG1-transgenic (Tg) mice and explored muscle differentiation in C2C12 myotubes. Tg mice exhibited significantly improved muscle performance compared to wild-type mice, as indicated by enhanced grip strength. Additionally, the proportion of type IIx fiber in the soleus muscle was significantly increased in Tg mice, along with a tendency towards elevated Myh1 mRNA expression. Enhanced CREG1 expression and activation of the Akt-mTOR signaling pathway, which is involved in muscle protein synthesis, were observed in the skeletal muscles of Tg mice. In C2C12 myotubes, Creg1 knockdown appears to decrease myoblast determination protein 1 (Myod1) expression, while recombinant CREG1 treatment restored Myod1 expression and promoted Akt-mTOR phosphorylation. These findings suggest that CREG1 stimulates muscle differentiation by enhancing protein synthesis, thereby influencing skeletal muscle function.

Introduction

In humans, skeletal muscle constitutes 40–50% of total body mass and plays a crucial role in various physiological processes, including movement, posture, and metabolism [1,2]. Sarcopenia refers to the age-related decline in muscle mass, strength, and function. Sarcopenia is a key contributor to the development of locomotive syndrome, which is associated with physical disability and poor quality of life [3,4]. Furthermore, sarcopenia is associated with an elevated risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus [5]. Therefore, maintaining skeletal muscle mass and strength is essential for preventing various diseases and maintaining overall health.

Cellular repressor of E1A-stimulated genes 1 (CREG1) is a secreted glycoprotein consisting of 220 amino acids (aa), including a 31-aa signal peptide in both humans and mice. Initially identified as a transcriptional regulator, CREG1 binds to the retinoblastoma tumor suppressor protein in vitro and represses the E1A-mediated activation of the adenovirus E2 promoter. In addition to its role in transcriptional regulation, CREG1 inhibits cell growth and promotes the differentiation of several cell types, including human embryonic teratocarcinoma NTERA-2 [6], smooth muscle [7], and cardiomyogenic [8] cells. Our previous study demonstrated that CREG1 upregulates uncoupling protein 1 and promotes brown adipogenesis in the murine mesenchymal stem cell line C3H10T1/2 [9]. An examination of the effects of CREG1 on energy metabolism in adipocyte P2 (aP2)-CREG1-transgenic (Tg) mice revealed that CREG1 overexpression stimulates brown fat thermogenesis and prevents diet-induced obesity [10]. Furthermore, administration of the recombinant form of CREG1 stimulates the differentiation of brown adipocytes and ameliorates diet-induced obesity in mice [11]. Recent findings from our group further demonstrated an increase in CREG1 expression, with the concurrent induction of myoblast determination protein 1 (MyoD), a key marker of skeletal muscle differentiation, during muscle regeneration [12]. However, the role of CREG1 in skeletal muscle differentiation remains incompletely understood.

Consequently, determining the role of CREG1 in skeletal muscle has gained considerable attention. In a study involving muscle-specific CREG1-knockout (KO) mice, Song et al. (2021) reported that the absence of CREG1 in skeletal muscles reduced the anti-fatigue capacity during endurance exercise in 9-month-old mice [13]. Muscle performance is closely linked to muscle fiber-type composition, which is broadly categorized into two types: (1) fast-twitch fibers, which are optimized for explosive power and force generation, and (2) slow-twitch fibers, which are adapted for endurance in sustained low-intensity exercise [1]. Notably, CREG1 deficiency resulted in a reduced proportion of type I fibers and an increased proportion of type II fibers in the skeletal muscles of 9-month-old muscle-specific CREG1-KO mice [13]. This finding suggests that CREG1 may influence skeletal muscle performance and muscle fiber-type composition. However, the effects of CREG1 on skeletal muscle strength and fiber-type composition remain incompletely understood.

Akt (protein kinase B) is a serine/threonine-specific protein kinase that plays a key role in various cellular processes, including protein synthesis, glucose metabolism, apoptosis, and cell proliferation [14]. The Akt/ mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway is essential for integrating intracellular signaling related to protein synthesis in skeletal muscle cells [15]. In addition to regulating muscle protein synthesis, the Akt/mTOR pathway also plays a critical role in muscle differentiation and regeneration [1618]. In our previous study, we observed a significant increase in CREG1 expression during muscle regeneration. However, there is currently no evidence of the impact of CREG1 on the Akt/mTOR signaling pathway in skeletal muscle.

Therefore, in the present study, using aP2-CREG1-Tg mice, we aimed to determine the effect of CREG1 on skeletal muscle phenotypes, including muscle strength and fiber-type composition. This approach was based on the fact that skeletal muscle and brown adipocytes share the same embryological origin [19,20]. Additionally, we evaluated the effect of CREG1 on skeletal muscle differentiation using mouse C2C12 myoblast cultures.

Materials and methods

Animals

The aP2-CREG1-Tg (Tg) mice were generated as previously described [10]. The aP2 protein is selectively expressed in adipocytes, as well as in macrophages [21,22]. We crossed the heterozygous transgenic mice (Tg; 14 th generation) with their wild-type (WT) littermates, and used the resulting Tg mice and their WT littermates for the experiments. Male WT and Tg mice (line 52) were fed a standard chow diet (CE-2; CLEA Japan, Inc., Shizuoka, Japan), and tap water was provided ad libitum. These mice were housed at approximately 23 °C under a 12-h light/12-h dark cycle. At 5 months of age, blood and tissue samples were collected from the mice under isoflurane anesthesia and stored at −80 °C. All experiments were conducted in strict accordance with the recommendations outlined in the Fundamental Guidelines for Proper Conduct of Animal Experiment and Related Activities in Academic Research Institutions under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology, Japan. The protocol was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of Chubu University (#202110004). The study was carried out in accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines.

Grip strength test

The grip strength test was performed following our previously established protocol [23]. Grip strength was measured using a force transducer (Model-761; AIKOH ENGINEERING, Aichi, Japan). Briefly, 3-month-old mice were allowed to rest on a horizontal wire mesh with their forelimbs and then gently pulled back until their maximum muscle strength was reached. A total of five consecutive measurements were recorded, and the mean grip strength was calculated, excluding the maximum and minimum values. The data, normalized to body weight, are expressed as N/g.

Immunohistochemistry (IHC) analyses

Serial transverse cryosections (8-μm thick) of the frozen samples were cut at −20 °C and mounted on glass slides [24]. The sections were air-dried and then blocked with 1% Roche Blocking Regent (Roche Diagnostics, Penzberg, Germany) for 1 h at 23 °C. After blocking, the samples were incubated overnight at 4 °C with primary antibodies targeting type I [1:100; BA-D5, Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank (DSHB), Iowa City, IA, USA], type IIa (1:200; SC-71, DSHB), type IIb (1:100; BF-F3, DSHB) fibers, and laminin (1:200; L9393, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) [25]. Staining was visualized by incubating the sections with the following secondary antibodies: goat anti-mouse IgG2b cross-adsorbed secondary antibody, Alexa Fluor™ 350 (1:500; A21140, Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA); goat anti-mouse IgG1 cross-adsorbed secondary antibody, Alexa Fluor™ 488 (1:500; A21121, Invitrogen); goat anti-mouse IgM cross-adsorbed secondary antibody, Alexa Fluor™ 555 (1:500; A21426, Invitrogen); and goat anti-rabbit IgG (H + L) cross-adsorbed secondary antibody, Alexa Fluor™ 647 (1:500; A21244, Invitrogen) for 1 h at room temperature. Samples were visualized under a microscope (BZ-9000, Keyence, Osaka, Japan) and analyzed using Image J software for IHC staining. All stained fibers in the muscle cross-section were counted manually.

C2C12 cell culture

Cell culture was performed as previously described [26,27]. Mouse myoblast C2C12 cells were cultured in 12-well plates with type I collagen-coated surfaces [AGC techno glass (IWAKI), Shizuoka, Japan]. The cells were maintained in Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (DMEM), supplemented with 10% heat-inactivated fetal bovine serum, high glucose (4,500 mg glucose/L), 4 mM L-glutamine, 110 mg/L sodium pyruvate, and 1% Penicillin-Streptomycin Solution (168–23191, WAKO, Osaka, Japan) in a humidified atmosphere of 95% air and 5% CO2 at 37 °C. When the cells reached approximately 80% confluence, the culture medium was replaced with a differentiation medium (DMEM supplemented with 2% horse serum, low glucose (1,000 mg glucose/L),4 mM L-glutamine, and 1% Penicillin-Streptomycin Solution). The differentiation medium was replaced with a fresh medium every 2 days.

RNA interference and CREG1 treatment

Twenty-four hours after seeding or 3 days after differentiation, RNA oligos were transfected into myoblasts or myotubes using Lipofectamine RNAiMax reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), as previously described [12]. Creg1-silencing experiments were performed using stealth small interfering RNA (siRNA) targeting CREG1 (MSS243209) and a scrambled stealth negative control (Invitrogen). The final siRNA concentration was 5 nM. One day after transfection, the cells were stimulated with purified C-terminal His-tag-fused CREG1 (CREG1-MH), as previously described [12]. CREG1-MH was added to the differentiation medium at a final concentration of 1 μg/mL.

Quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction

Total RNA was extracted using TRIzol reagent (Thermo Fisher Scientific) and reverse-transcribed using a High-Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription Kit (Thermo Fisher Scientific), according to the manufacturer’s instructions [28,29]. Quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) was performed using a Light-Cycler® and THUNDERBIRDTM SYBR® qPCR Mix (TOYOBO, Osaka, Japan) to quantify mRNA levels. Gene expression was quantified using the relative standard curve method, with 36b4 serving as an internal standard for the normalization of the total RNA amount in each reaction. The following primers were used: Creg1, 5′-GACCTGCAGGAAAATCCAGA-3′ (forward) and 5′-AACAAACAGCGAATCCCTTG-3′ (reverse); Myh1, 5′-AGTCCCAGGTCAACAAGCTG-3′ (forward) and 5′-CACATTTTGCTCATCTCTCTTTG-3′ (reverse); Myh2, 5′-AGTCCCAGGTCAACAAGCTG-3′ (forward) and 5′-GCATGACCAAAGGTTTCACA-3′ (reverse); Myh4, 5′-AGTCCCAGGTCAACAAGCTG-3′ (forward) and 5′-TTTCTCCTGTCACCTCTCAACA-3′ (reverse); Myh7, 5′-AGTCCCAGGTCAACAAGCTG-3′ (forward) and 5′-TTCCACCTAAAGGGCTGTTG-3′ (reverse); Myod1, 5′-AAGACGACTCTCACGGCTTG-3′ (forward) and 5′-GCAGGTCTGGTGAGTCGAAA-3′ (reverse); and 36b4, 5′-TCATCCAGCAGGTGTTTGACA-3′ (forward) and 5′- CCCATTGATGATGGAGTGTGG-3′ (reverse).

Western blot analysis

Western blot analysis was performed as previously described [30,31]. Protein samples (10 μg) were separated using sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) on a 12% polyacrylamide gel and transferred onto polyvinylidene difluoride membranes (Millipore, Burlington, MA, USA). The membranes were blocked for 1 h at room temperature in nonfat dry milk and then incubated overnight at 4 °C with the following antibodies: anti-CREG1 (ab233282; Abcam, Cambridge, UK), anti-Akt Ser473 [9271; Cell Signaling Technology (CST), Danvers, MA, USA], anti-Akt (9272; CST), anti-glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH) (2118; CST), anti- insulin-like growth factor 2 receptor (IGF2R) (14364; CST), anti- mTOR Ser2448 (2971; CST), anti- mTOR (2972; CST), and anti-α/β-tubulin (2148; CST). After incubation with secondary antibodies for 1 h at room temperature, protein bands were visualized using ImmunoStar LD (WAKO). Protein signals were detected using the LAS4000 system (FUJIFILM, Tokyo, Japan).

Statistical analyses

Data are expressed as mean ± standard error of the mean (SEM). Multiple comparisons were made using a one-way ANOVA, followed by post-hoc analysis with the Tukey–Kramer test or Student’s t-test. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results

aP2-CREG1-Tg mice exhibited elevated muscle performance

In a previous study, we demonstrated that CREG1 plays an important role in muscle regeneration [12]. In the present study, to evaluate the effect of CREG1 on muscle performance, we first assessed muscle strength in Tg mice using the grip strength test. There were no significant differences in body weight or muscle mass between Tg and littermate WT mice (Table 1). However, the grip strength of the forelimbs in Tg mice was significantly higher (13%) than that in WT mice (Fig 1). This finding suggests that Tg mice exhibit superior muscle function relative to WT mice.

Table 1. Body weight and muscle weight in wild-type (WT) and adipocyte P2-CREG1-transgenic (Tg) mice.

WT Tg p-value
Body Weight (g) 31.0 ± 0.63 29.6 ± 0.67 0.197
Absolute muscle wet weight
Soleus (mg) 11.0 ± 0.55 9.2 ± 0.30 0.065
Plantaris (mg) 21.0 ± 0.94 19.4 ± 0.66 0.209
Relative muscle wet weight
Soleus (mg/g) 0.35 ± 0.01 0.31 ± 0.01 0.057
Plantaris (mg/g) 0.68 ± 0.03 0.65 ± 0.009 0.441

Fig 1. Muscle performance in wild-type (WT) and adipocyte P2-CREG1-transgenic (Tg) mice.

Fig 1

Grip strength was performed on 3-month-old WT and Tg mice. Forelimb grip strength. Data are presented as mean ± SEM; n = 8 per group. A student's t-test was performed; *P < 0.05, versus WT.

CREG1 upregulation in skeletal muscle alters the composition of muscle fiber types

Muscle strength is closely related to fiber-type composition [32,33]. Skeletal muscle fibers are broadly classified into “slow-twitch” (type I) and “fast-twitch” (type II) fibers, with type II muscle fibers designed for short, powerful bursts of energy. To investigate potential changes in muscle-fiber phenotypes in Tg skeletal muscles, we assessed fiber-type composition using immunohistochemistry staining of the soleus and plantaris muscles in WT and Tg mice. In the soleus muscle, the proportion of type IIx muscle fibers was higher in Tg mice than in WT mice (Figs 2A and 2C). Consistently, the number of type IIx fibers in the soleus muscle of Tg mice was significantly higher than that in WT mice (Fig 2E). In contrast, no significant differences in fiber-type distribution were observed in the plantaris muscle between WT and Tg mice (Figs 2B and 2D). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the number of fiber types in the plantaris muscle between WT and Tg mice (Fig 2F). Skeletal muscle contains four myosin heavy-chain isoforms: Myh7 (Type I), Myh2 (Type IIa), Myh1 (Type IIx) and Myh4 (Type IIb). The Myh1 and Myh7 mRNA levels tended to be higher in the soleus muscles of Tg mice compared to WT mice, although the differences were not statistically significant (Fig 2G). In contrast, the levels of myosin heavy-chain isoforms in the plantaris muscle did not differ between the groups (Fig 2H).

Fig 2. Muscle fiber-type composition and myosin heavy chain isoforms in wild-type (WT) and adipocyte P2-CREG1-transgenic (Tg) mice.

Fig 2

Muscle fiber-type composition was analyzed in the soleus and plantaris muscles of 5-month-old WT and Tg mice. (A-B) Immunostaining of myofibers in the soleus (A) and plantaris (B) muscles of WT and Tg mice. Type I (blue), type IIa (green), type IIx (black), type IIb (red), and lamin (white). Scale bar, 50 µm. (C-D) Distribution of muscle fiber types in the soleus (C) and plantaris (D) muscles. (E-F) Number of myofibers in the soleus (E) and plantaris (F) muscles of WT and Tg mice. (G-H) Relative levels of Myh7, Myh2, Myh1 and Myh4 mRNA in the soleus (G) and plantaris (H) muscles. Data were normalized to the 36b4 mRNA level. Data are presented as mean ± SEM; n = 4–6 per group. A student's t-test was performed; *P < 0.05, versus WT.

CREG1 upregulation in skeletal muscle tissue enhances Akt-mTOR signaling

We examined the mRNA and protein expression of CREG1 in the soleus muscles of mice, as CREG1 expression is significantly induced during muscle regeneration [12]. Although the serum CREG1 level was higher in Tg mice than in WT mice (Fig 3A), the difference was not statistically significant. However, the Creg1 mRNA level in the soleus muscle was significantly higher in Tg mice than in WT mice (Fig 3B). Similarly, the CREG1 protein level in the soleus muscle was significantly higher in Tg mice than in WT mice (Fig 3C). A previous study demonstrated that CREG1 binds to IGF2R [34], and in the soleus muscle, IGF2R expression tended to be higher in Tg mice than in WT mice (Fig 3D and 3E). Skeletal muscle development is regulated at the translational level through the stimulation of protein synthesis [35]. Therefore, we investigated the effect of CREG1 on Akt-mTOR signaling [36]. Notably, phosphorylation of Akt Ser473 (Fig 3D and 3E) and mTOR Ser2442 (Fig 3D and 3E) in the soleus muscles was significantly higher in Tg mice than in WT mice, suggesting an increase in muscle protein synthesis in Tg mice. There was no significant difference in total Akt and mTOR levels between WT and Tg mice (Fig 3D and 3E).

Fig 3. Effect of CREG1 on protein expression in the soleus muscles of adipocyte P2-CREG1-transgenic (Tg) mice.

Fig 3

(A) Western blotting for CREG1 was performed using the serum (1 µL) of wild type (WT) and Tg mice. (B-C) The expression of CREG1 in the soleus muscles of WT and Tg mice was examined using RT-PCR and western blot analysis. Relative levels of Creg1 mRNA (B) and CREG1 protein (C) in the soleus muscles. (D) Relative levels of insulin-like growth factor 2 receptor (IGF2R), phosphorylated Akt Ser473 (pAkt), total Akt (Akt), phosphorylated mechanistic target of rapamycin (pmTOR) Ser2448 and total mTOR (mTOR) in the soleus muscles. Data were normalized to those of glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (GAPDH). (E) Western blotting for IGF2R, pAkt, Akt, pmTOR, mTOR and GAPDH in the soleus muscles. Representative images are shown. Data are presented as mean ± SEM; n = 4–6 per group. A student's t-test was performed; *P < 0.05, versus WT.

Effects of CREG1 on muscle differentiation and Akt-mTOR signaling in vitro

To further investigate the role of CREG1 in muscle development, we examined its impact on the differentiation of mouse C2C12 myoblasts into myotubes in vitro. The Creg1 mRNA level increased significantly over the course of 1–3 days of differentiation stimulation in C2C12 cells (Fig 4A). MyoD, a key transcriptional regulator of muscle differentiation in C2C12 cells [37], exhibited a delayed upregulation of Myod1 mRNA expression (Fig 4B) compared to the early increase in Creg1 mRNA expression during differentiation. Next, we determined whether CREG1 influences Myod1 expression during C2C12 cell differentiation. One day after Creg1 knockdown in myoblasts, the cells were treated with C-terminal His-tag-fused CREG1 (CREG1-MH) for 4 days in a differentiation medium. The expression of Creg1 mRNA was significantly suppressed in myotubes transfected with Creg1 siRNA compared to those transfected with scrambled non-targeting control siRNA (Con siRNA) (Fig 4C). As shown in Fig 4D, the Myod1 mRNA level shows a tendency to decrease in myotubes transfected with Creg1 siRNA compared to those transfected with Con siRNA; however, no significant difference was observed. Notably, this decrease in Myod1 mRNA was reversed upon treatment with recombinant CREG1-MH.

Fig 4. Effect of CREG1 treatment on gene expression during muscle differentiation.

Fig 4

(A-B) Time course of Creg1 (A)and Myod1 (B) mRNA expression in C2C12 myotubes. Mouse C2C12 cells were differentiated into myotubes for 5 days. (C-D) The mRNA level of Creg1 (C) and Myod1 (D) in siRNA-transfected C2C12 cells with or without CREG1. C2C12 cells were transfected with scrambled non-targeting control siRNA (Con) or Creg1-specific siRNA and then treated with recombinant CREG1 (1 µg/mL) for 4 days. The data were normalized to 36b4 level. The data are presented as mean ± SEM; n = 3 per group. One-way ANOVA with Tukey–Kramer multiple comparisons post hoc test was performed; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, versus 0 day or Con siRNA.

Finally, we evaluated the effects of CREG1 on the protein synthesis pathway in C2C12 cells. Myotubes treated with Creg1 siRNA and CREG1-MH showed a time-dependent increase in CREG1 protein levels (Fig 5A), consistent with findings from our previous study in C2C12 myotubes [12]. As shown in Figs 5B and 5C, phosphorylation of Akt Ser473 and mTOR Ser2448 significantly increased upon CREG1-MH treatment in Creg1 siRNA-transfected myotubes in a time-dependent manner. At 24 h, phosphorylation of Akt and mTOR was 40.6- and 7.0-fold higher than that at 0 min, respectively (Figs 5B and Fig 5C).

Fig 5. Effect of CREG1 treatment on protein expression in myotubes.

Fig 5

Mouse C2C12 cells transfected with Creg1-specific siRNA were differentiated into myotubes and then treated with recombinant CREG1 (1 µg/mL) for the indicated time. (A) Relative levels of CREG1 in C2C12 myotubes (n = 2–3). The data were normalized to Tubulin level. (B) Relative levels of phospho-Akt Ser473 in C2C12 myotubes (n = 2–3). The data were normalized to the total Akt level. (C) Relative levels of phospho-mechanistic target of rapamycin (mTOR) Ser2448 in C2C12 myotubes (n = 2–3). The data were normalized to the total mTOR level. The data are presented as mean ± SEM. One-way ANOVA with Tukey–Kramer multiple comparisons post hoc test was performed; *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, versus 0 min.

Discussion

This study revealed significant enhancement of muscle performance in aP2-CREG1-Tg mice, as demonstrated by increased grip strength. These results suggest that CREG1 may contribute to the observed improvements in muscle strength in the Tg mice. Consistent with our findings, Song et al. (2021) recently reported that skeletal muscle-specific CREG1-KO mice exhibited a significant reduction in exercise duration to exhaustion and that recombinant CREG1 protein administration improved muscle motor function in CREG1-KO mice [13]. Furthermore, our results showed a significant increase in CREG1 expression in the soleus muscle of aP2-CREG1-Tg mice compared to WT mice (Fig 3C). These findings suggest that the increase in muscle strength in aP2-CREG1-Tg mice may be associated with elevated expression of CREG1 in skeletal muscle.

Fast-twitch fibers utilize anaerobic metabolism to generate fuel, making them more adept at producing short bursts of strength or speed than slow-twitch fibers [1]. Consequently, athletes, particularly sprinters, tend to have a higher proportion of fast-twitch fibers than non-athletes [38]. Fast-twitch fibers are glycolytic, using anaerobic glycogen breakdown for energy production required for high-intensity, short-duration activities [1,39]. Accordingly, this is reflected in the significantly higher anaerobic capacity observed in athletes, as demonstrated by the Wingate test [40]. In muscle-specific CREG1-KO mice, Myh1 mRNA expression was significantly reduced in the gastrocnemius muscle, which contains both slow- and fast-twitch fibers [13]. This finding aligns with our results and suggests that CREG1 plays a role in promoting type IIx fibers. However, another study using CREG1-KO mice reported a decrease in the proportion of type I fibers and an increase in type II fibers in the soleus muscle, although they did not assess Myh gene expression [13]. Notably, while KO mice showed an increase in type II fibers, our study found an increase in the proportion of type IIx fibers in the Tg-soleus muscle, which may explain the discrepancy. The study by Song et al. (2021) did not categorize the type II fibers, which could account for the differences in our results. However, the reasons for the differences between our study findings and those reported by Song et al. (2021) remain incompletely understood. One possible explanation could be due to the source of CREG1. Because CREG1 is thought to be mainly supplied by the liver to other organs, including skeletal muscles. Therefore, exogenous CREG1 produced by non-muscle tissues may still influence skeletal muscle function in the absence of endogenous CREG1 in skeletal muscle. Indeed, exogenous CREG1 is incorporated into myotubes via IGF2R and stimulates cellular glucose uptake [12]. Therefore, it is possible that exogenous CREG1 affects muscle biology through IGF2R even in the absence of endogenous CREG1. Further studies are needed to fully understand the changes in Myh expression patterns and classification of type II fibers in the soleus muscle of muscle-specific CREG1-KO mice.

In the present study, we observed a significant increase in Creg1 mRNA levels in the skeletal muscles of aP2-CREG1-Tg mice compared to WT mice (Fig 3B). This observation was unexpected because the aP2-CREG1-Tg mice were specifically designed to overexpress CREG1 in adipose tissue. Indeed, Creg1 mRNA expression in the adipose tissue of Tg mice was approximately 20-fold higher than in the adipose tissue of WT mice, while no induction was detected in the liver, heart, or kidney [10]. In contrast, the increase in Creg1 mRNA levels in the soleus muscle was considerably lower (4-fold) than in the adipose tissues of Tg mice. The exact reason for the stimulation of Creg1 expression in skeletal muscles remains unclear. However, a possible explanation is that CREG1 secreted from adipose tissue and the liver may circulate through the bloodstream and influence skeletal muscle. Although serum CREG1 levels were higher in Tg mice than in WT mice, no significant differences were observed (Fig 3A). This observation suggests that the effects of CREG1 on skeletal muscle could be mediated not only by exogenous CREG1 but also by endogenous CREG1 in an autocrine and/or paracrine manner. In support of this hypothesis, CREG1 administration stimulates the differentiation of brown adipocytes [11], which share the same embryological origin as skeletal muscles [19,20]. Moreover, Creg1 expression is significantly induced during muscle regeneration in mice, which correlates with an increase in Myod1 expression [12]. We previously demonstrated that CREG1 stimulates glucose uptake through AMPK activation in skeletal muscle cells [12]. More recently, Song et al. (2021) reported similar findings using a conditional mouse model, showing that CREG1 influences muscle regeneration through AMPK signaling; however, the connection between CREG1 and Akt/mTOR signaling, as well as protein synthesis, was previously unknown.

In the present study, we found that the mRNA levels of Creg1 and Myod1 increased concomitantly during C2C12 myoblast differentiation (Figs 4A and 4B). Moreover, our results showed that Creg1 knockdown decreased Myod1 expression, while recombinant CREG1 treatment restored its expression (Fig 4D), suggesting that CREG1 may regulate Myod1 expression. Therefore, exogenous CREG1 may have stimulated its own transcription in the skeletal muscles of Tg mice, contributing to the rearrangement of muscle fiber composition. Future studies are needed to clarify the molecular mechanisms by which CREG1 stimulates fiber-type transitions in skeletal muscles.

Muscle fiber-type transition is a complex process involving protein synthesis and degradation. Autophagy, a catabolic process that degrades organelles and cytoplasmic constituents in the lysosome, has been implicated in this process [41]. Song et al. (2021) reported that CREG1 protects against myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury by regulating myocardial autophagy [42], and CREG1 also plays a role in mitophagy during growth or disease development [13]. In the present study, we observed a trend toward lower soleus muscle weight in Tg mice than in WT mice, suggesting that CREG1 may stimulate autophagy for muscle rearrangement. In contrast, the Akt-mTOR-p70S6K pathway is widely recognized as a key regulator of protein synthesis [36]. Wilson et al. (2007) demonstrated that Akt1 activation positively regulates MyoD expression and myogenic differentiation [43]. Additionally, studies using rapamycin, an mTOR inhibitor, have shown that inhibition of mTOR negatively affects C2C12 myogenesis, indicating the importance of the Akt-mTOR pathway in muscle differentiation [44]. In the present study, we observed significant activation of the Akt-mTOR pathway in the skeletal muscles of Tg mice, as well as in C2C12 myotubes treated with CREG1-MH. These findings suggest that CREG1 may regulate both protein synthesis and myogenic gene expression through Akt-mTOR pathway activation.

In conclusion, this study suggests that CREG1 plays an important role in skeletal muscle differentiation and function. Increased CREG1 expression may contribute to the enhancement of muscle strength. In addition, CREG1 can stimulate Myod1 expression by activating the Akt/mTOR signaling pathway, supporting muscle differentiation.

Limitations

In this study, we revealed that CREG1 enhances Akt-mTOR signaling in skeletal muscles; however, the underlying mechanism remains unclear. Another limitation of this study is the absence of data on muscle performance and phenotype of skeletal muscle-specific CREG1-Tg or KO models. Future studies using transgenic animals should address these gaps.

Supporting information

S1 Raw images. Raw data images of the original immunohistochemistry and western blot images.

(PDF)

pone.0328485.s001.pdf (1.8MB, pdf)
File S1. Supporting data: Table S1. Data for Figure 1.

Table S2. Data analysis results for Figure 1 using Student’s t-test. Table S3. Data for Figure 2C. Table S4. Data analysis results for Figure 2C using Student’s t-test. Table S5. Data for Figure 2D. Table S6. Data analysis results for Figure 2D using Student’s t-test. Table S7. Data for Figure 2E. Table S8. Data analysis results for Figure 2E using Student’s t-test. Table S9. Data for Figure 2F. Table S10. Data analysis results for Figure 2F using Student’s t-test. Table S11. Data for Figure 2G. Table S12. Data analysis results for Figure 2G using Student’s t-test. Table S13. Data for Figure 2H. Table S14. Data analysis results for Figure 2H using Student’s t-test. S15. Data for Figure 3A-C. Table S16. Data analysis results for Figure 3A-C using Student’s t-test. Table S17. Data for Figure 3D. Table S18. Data analysis results for Figure 3D using Student’s t-test. Table S19. Data for Figure 4A-B. Table S20. Data analysis results for Figure 4A-B using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey–Kramer test. Table S21. Data for Figure 4C-D. Table S22. Data analysis results for Figure 4C-D using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey–Kramer test. Table S23. Data for Figure 5A-C. Table S24. Data analysis results for Figure 5A-C using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey–Kramer test.

(PDF)

pone.0328485.s002.pdf (140.9KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank M. Matsui, Y. Yamashita, Y. Nishimoto, Y. Endo, I. Matsuda, and K. Miyake (Chubu University) for their technical support.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Kakenhi) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (20K06450 and 23K10881 to Hitoshi Yamashita, 21K17668 to Ayumi Goto, 18K11034 to Michihiro Hashimoto), YOKOYAMA Foundation for Clinical Pharmacology (YRY-2020 to Ayumi Goto), Naito Research Grant (Ayumi Goto), The Hibi Science Foundation (Ayumi Goto), Chubu University Grant R (Ayumi Goto), and Toyohashi Sozo University research grant (Ayumi Goto). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Frontera WR, Ochala J. Skeletal muscle: a brief review of structure and function. Calcif Tissue Int. 2015;96(3):183–95. doi: 10.1007/s00223-014-9915-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Thyfault JP, Bergouignan A. Exercise and metabolic health: beyond skeletal muscle. Diabetologia. 2020;63(8):1464–74. doi: 10.1007/s00125-020-05177-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Santilli V, Bernetti A, Mangone M, Paoloni M. Clinical definition of sarcopenia. Clin Cases Miner Bone Metab. 2014;11(3):177–80. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Walston JD. Sarcopenia in older adults. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2012;24(6):623–7. doi: 10.1097/BOR.0b013e328358d59b [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lopez-Jaramillo P, Lopez-Lopez JP, Tole MC, Cohen DD. Muscular Strength in Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease and Mortality: A Narrative Review. Anatol J Cardiol. 2022;26(8):598–607. doi: 10.5152/AnatolJCardiol.2022.1586 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Veal E, Eisenstein M, Tseng ZH, Gill G. A cellular repressor of E1A-stimulated genes that inhibits activation by E2F. Mol Cell Biol. 1998;18(9):5032–41. doi: 10.1128/MCB.18.9.5032 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Peng C, Shao X, Tian X, Li Y, Liu D, Yan C, et al. CREG ameliorates embryonic stem cell differentiation into smooth muscle cells by modulation of TGF-β expression. Differentiation. 2022;125:9–17. doi: 10.1016/j.diff.2022.03.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Liu J, Qi Y, Li S, Hsu S-C, Saadat S, Hsu J, et al. CREG1 Interacts with Sec8 to Promote Cardiomyogenic Differentiation and Cell-Cell Adhesion. Stem Cells. 2016;34(11):2648–60. doi: 10.1002/stem.2434 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kusudo T, Hashimoto M, Kataoka N, Li Y, Nozaki A, Yamashita H. CREG1 promotes uncoupling protein 1 expression and brown adipogenesis in vitro. J Biochem. 2019;165(1):47–55. doi: 10.1093/jb/mvy083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Hashimoto M, Kusudo T, Takeuchi T, Kataoka N, Mukai T, Yamashita H. CREG1 stimulates brown adipocyte formation and ameliorates diet-induced obesity in mice. FASEB J. 2019;33(7):8069–82. doi: 10.1096/fj.201802147RR [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Kusudo T, Okada T, Hashimoto M, Takeuchi T, Endo Y, Niwa A, et al. CREG1 administration stimulates BAT thermogenesis and improves diet-induced obesity in mice. J Biochem. 2022;171(1):63–73. doi: 10.1093/jb/mvab106 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Goto A, Endo Y, Yamashita H. CREG1 stimulates AMPK phosphorylation and glucose uptake in skeletal muscle cells. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2023;641:162–7. doi: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2022.12.028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Song H, Tian X, Liu D, Liu M, Liu Y, Liu J, et al. CREG1 improves the capacity of the skeletal muscle response to exercise endurance via modulation of mitophagy. Autophagy. 2021;17(12):4102–18. doi: 10.1080/15548627.2021.1904488 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Manning BD, Cantley LC. AKT/PKB signaling: navigating downstream. Cell. 2007;129(7):1261–74. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.06.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bodine SC, Stitt TN, Gonzalez M, Kline WO, Stover GL, Bauerlein R, et al. Akt/mTOR pathway is a crucial regulator of skeletal muscle hypertrophy and can prevent muscle atrophy in vivo. Nat Cell Biol. 2001;3(11):1014–9. doi: 10.1038/ncb1101-1014 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Yoon M-S. mTOR as a Key Regulator in Maintaining Skeletal Muscle Mass. Front Physiol. 2017;8:788. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00788 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Ge Y, Wu A-L, Warnes C, Liu J, Zhang C, Kawasome H, et al. mTOR regulates skeletal muscle regeneration in vivo through kinase-dependent and kinase-independent mechanisms. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2009;297(6):C1434-44. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00248.2009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Gardner S, Anguiano M, Rotwein P. Defining Akt actions in muscle differentiation. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2012;303(12):C1292-300. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00259.2012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Timmons JA, Wennmalm K, Larsson O, Walden TB, Lassmann T, Petrovic N, et al. Myogenic gene expression signature establishes that brown and white adipocytes originate from distinct cell lineages. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007;104(11):4401–6. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0610615104 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Seale P, Bjork B, Yang W, Kajimura S, Chin S, Kuang S, et al. PRDM16 controls a brown fat/skeletal muscle switch. Nature. 2008;454(7207):961–7. doi: 10.1038/nature07182 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Makowski L, Brittingham KC, Reynolds JM, Suttles J, Hotamisligil GS. The fatty acid-binding protein, aP2, coordinates macrophage cholesterol trafficking and inflammatory activity. Macrophage expression of aP2 impacts peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma and IkappaB kinase activities. J Biol Chem. 2005;280(13):12888–95. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M413788200 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yang J, Liu S, Li Y, Fan Z, Meng Y, Zhou B, et al. FABP4 in macrophages facilitates obesity-associated pancreatic cancer progression via the NLRP3/IL-1β axis. Cancer Lett. 2023;575:216403. doi: 10.1016/j.canlet.2023.216403 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Egawa T, Tsuda S, Goto A, Ohno Y, Yokoyama S, Goto K, et al. Potential involvement of dietary advanced glycation end products in impairment of skeletal muscle growth and muscle contractile function in mice. Br J Nutr. 2017;117(1):21–9. doi: 10.1017/S0007114516004591 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yasuhara K, Ohno Y, Kojima A, Uehara K, Beppu M, Sugiura T, et al. Absence of heat shock transcription factor 1 retards the regrowth of atrophied soleus muscle in mice. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2011;111(4):1142–9. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00471.2011 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Sandonà D, Desaphy J-F, Camerino GM, Bianchini E, Ciciliot S, Danieli-Betto D, et al. Adaptation of mouse skeletal muscle to long-term microgravity in the MDS mission. PLoS One. 2012;7(3):e33232. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0033232 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ohno Y, Ando K, Ito T, Suda Y, Matsui Y, Oyama A, et al. Lactate Stimulates a Potential for Hypertrophy and Regeneration of Mouse Skeletal Muscle. Nutrients. 2019;11(4):869. doi: 10.3390/nu11040869 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ohno Y, Oyama A, Kaneko H, Egawa T, Yokoyama S, Sugiura T, et al. Lactate increases myotube diameter via activation of MEK/ERK pathway in C2C12 cells. Acta Physiol (Oxf). 2018;223(2):e13042. doi: 10.1111/apha.13042 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Nasu T, Hori A, Hotta N, Kihara C, Kubo A, Katanosaka K, et al. Vacuolar-ATPase-mediated muscle acidification caused muscular mechanical nociceptive hypersensitivity after chronic stress in rats, which involved extracellular matrix proteoglycan and ASIC3. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):13585. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-39633-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Fujiyoshi H, Egawa T, Kurogi E, Yokokawa T, Kido K, Hayashi T. TLR4-Mediated Inflammatory Responses Regulate Exercise-Induced Molecular Adaptations in Mouse Skeletal Muscle. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(3):1877. doi: 10.3390/ijms23031877 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Egawa T, Ogawa T, Yokokawa T, Kido K, Goto K, Hayashi T. Methylglyoxal reduces molecular responsiveness to 4 weeks of endurance exercise in mouse plantaris muscle. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2022;132(2):477–88. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00539.2021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Ohno Y, Sugiura T, Ohira Y, Yoshioka T, Goto K. Loading-associated expression of TRIM72 and caveolin-3 in antigravitational soleus muscle in mice. Physiol Rep. 2014;2(12):e12259. doi: 10.14814/phy2.12259 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wilson JM, Loenneke JP, Jo E, Wilson GJ, Zourdos MC, Kim J-S. The effects of endurance, strength, and power training on muscle fiber type shifting. J Strength Cond Res. 2012;26(6):1724–9. doi: 10.1519/JSC.0b013e318234eb6f [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Andersen JL, Aagaard P. Effects of strength training on muscle fiber types and size; consequences for athletes training for high-intensity sport. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20 Suppl 2:32–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0838.2010.01196.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Veal E, Groisman R, Eisenstein M, Gill G. The secreted glycoprotein CREG enhances differentiation of NTERA-2 human embryonal carcinoma cells. Oncogene. 2000;19(17):2120–8. doi: 10.1038/sj.onc.1203529 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Damas F, Libardi CA, Ugrinowitsch C. The development of skeletal muscle hypertrophy through resistance training: the role of muscle damage and muscle protein synthesis. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2018;118(3):485–500. doi: 10.1007/s00421-017-3792-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Miyazaki M, Esser KA. Cellular mechanisms regulating protein synthesis and skeletal muscle hypertrophy in animals. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2009;106(4):1367–73. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.91355.2008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Braun T, Gautel M. Transcriptional mechanisms regulating skeletal muscle differentiation, growth and homeostasis. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2011;12(6):349–61. doi: 10.1038/nrm3118 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Trappe S, Luden N, Minchev K, Raue U, Jemiolo B, Trappe TA. Skeletal muscle signature of a champion sprint runner. J Appl Physiol (1985). 2015;118(12):1460–6. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00037.2015 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Westerblad H, Bruton JD, Katz A. Skeletal muscle: energy metabolism, fiber types, fatigue and adaptability. Exp Cell Res. 2010;316(18):3093–9. doi: 10.1016/j.yexcr.2010.05.019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Malinauskas R, Dumciene A, Mamkus G, Venckunas T. Personality traits and exercise capacity in male athletes and non-athletes. Percept Mot Skills. 2014;118(1):145–61. doi: 10.2466/29.25.PMS.118k13w1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kaur J, Debnath J. Autophagy at the crossroads of catabolism and anabolism. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2015;16(8):461–72. doi: 10.1038/nrm4024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Song H, Yan C, Tian X, Zhu N, Li Y, Liu D, et al. CREG protects from myocardial ischemia/reperfusion injury by regulating myocardial autophagy and apoptosis. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Basis Dis. 2017;1863(8):1893–903. doi: 10.1016/j.bbadis.2016.11.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wilson EM, Rotwein P. Selective control of skeletal muscle differentiation by Akt1. J Biol Chem. 2007;282(8):5106–10. doi: 10.1074/jbc.C600315200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Erbay E, Chen J. The mammalian target of rapamycin regulates C2C12 myogenesis via a kinase-independent mechanism. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(39):36079–82. doi: 10.1074/jbc.C100406200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Keisuke Hitachi

PONE-D-25-09063Cellular repressor of E1A-stimulated genes 1 enhances skeletal muscle performance through the stimulation of muscle differentiation and fiber transition via Akt-mTOR signaling pathway activationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Goto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Your manuscript has been assessed by two experts. They have expressed interest in the manuscript but also raised several concerns. Please address all comments by point-by-point adequately.

In particular, we request a full response to the changes in grip strength.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 01 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Keisuke Hitachi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.  Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf  and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Kakenhi) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (20K06450 and 23K10881 to Hitoshi Yamashita, 21K17668 to Ayumi Goto, 18K11034 to Michihiro Hashimoto), YOKOYAMA Foundation for Clinical Pharmacology (YRY-2020 to Ayumi Goto), Naito Research Grant (Ayumi Goto), The Hibi Science Foundation (Ayumi Goto), and Chubu University Grant R (Ayumi Goto).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors would like to thank M. Matsui, Y. Yamashita, Y. Nishimoto, Y. Endo, I. Matsuda, and K. Miyake (Chubu University) for their technical support. The work was supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Kakenhi) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (20K06450 and 23K10881 to HY, 21K17668 to AG, 18K11034 to MH), YOKOYAMA Foundation for Clinical Pharmacology (YRY-2020 to AG), Naito Research Grant (AG), The Hibi Science Foundation (AG), and Chubu University Grant R (AG).”

We note that you have provided funding information that is currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (Kakenhi) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (20K06450 and 23K10881 to Hitoshi Yamashita, 21K17668 to Ayumi Goto, 18K11034 to Michihiro Hashimoto), YOKOYAMA Foundation for Clinical Pharmacology (YRY-2020 to Ayumi Goto), Naito Research Grant (Ayumi Goto), The Hibi Science Foundation (Ayumi Goto), and Chubu University Grant R (Ayumi Goto).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. When completing the data availability statement of the submission form, you indicated that you will make your data available on acceptance. We strongly recommend all authors decide on a data sharing plan before acceptance, as the process can be lengthy and hold up publication timelines. Please note that, though access restrictions are acceptable now, your entire data will need to be made freely accessible if your manuscript is accepted for publication. This policy applies to all data except where public deposition would breach compliance with the protocol approved by your research ethics board. If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption. Please be assured that, once you have provided your new statement, the assessment of your exemption will not hold up the peer review process.

5. PLOS ONE now requires that authors provide the original uncropped and unadjusted images underlying all blot or gel results reported in a submission’s figures or Supporting Information files. This policy and the journal’s other requirements for blot/gel reporting and figure preparation are described in detail at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-preparing-figures-from-image-files. When you submit your revised manuscript, please ensure that your figures adhere fully to these guidelines and provide the original underlying images for all blot or gel data reported in your submission. See the following link for instructions on providing the original image data: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-original-images-for-blots-and-gels.  

In your cover letter, please note whether your blot/gel image data are in Supporting Information or posted at a public data repository, provide the repository URL if relevant, and provide specific details as to which raw blot/gel images, if any, are not available. Email us at plosone@plos.org if you have any questions.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The Manuscript authored by Goto et al. aims to contribute to our understanding of CREG1's role in skeletal muscle function and differentiation, in addition to associated mechanisms. Overall, this paper is well-written and provides both in-vivo and in-vitro data to support the role of CREG1 in skeletal muscle.

As such, I will provide some minor revisions below:

1. Where appropriate, please provide more references to support claims made in the introduction and discussion. Examples include lines 51-54 when discussing sarcopenia, and lines: 374-375 when discussing the proportion of fiber types in athletes.

2. Please define all terms/names upon first use in the manuscript, e.g., line: 64, NTERA-2

3. Please add the year of publication when referencing studies by author name. E.g., "Song et al. (Year)"

4. Although soleus Myh1 expression was higher in Tg mice, it was not statistically significant as reported in the abstract. Please specify this in the abstract, results and discussion (that Myh1 trended towards higher but was not significant)

5. Along the same lines, specify that MyoD1 trended towards lower in CREG1 knockdown cells but was also not significant

6. Line 368: should this say myh7, not myh1?

7. Line 391-393: "CREG1 is thought to be mainly supplied by the liver to other organs, including skeletal muscles, exogenous CREG1 may still influence skeletal muscle function in the absence of endogenous CREG1" - modify this sentence to specify that exogenous in this context means from non-muscle tissues (e.g., liver) and endogenous means produced within skeletal muscle

8. Make a limitations section following the discussion and move the mention of the lack of muscle performance data (line 456) to this section

Reviewer #2: This manuscript by Goto et al. is aimed to determine the effect of tissue-specific CREG1 overexpression on skeletal muscle. Several points are unclear, and these should be addressed.

1) The conclusion that the increase in grip strength may be mediated by a shift in fiber type is not well supported. First, while it is true that fast-twitch fibers are often associated with greater maximal muscle strength, this is almost entirely explained by the fibers being larger. For example: PMID: 11148759, PMID: 21317219. There is no evidence provided that the muscles are larger. Indeed, in the transgenic, the soleus muscle are 15% smaller, while the EDL are 7.6% smaller (Table 1). Second, grip strength was only done with the forelimbs, which consist of almost entirely fast-twitch muscles (PMID: 22938020), like the plantaris of the hindlimb. Since the plantaris had no shift in myosin heavy chain (Fig 2), there is no rationale to presume that the myosin heavy chain composition of the forelimbs changed. Therefore, the conclusion that a shift in myosin heavy chain is mediating an increase in strength must either be supported with additional data or should be purged from this manuscript (Title, Abstract, Discussion)

2) All the individual data points must be shown for all the bar graphs. This is now common practice for rigorous presentation of data, and PLOS Data policy requires the authors to show the underlying data.

3) Figure 3. The blots and calculations for the total amount of IGF2R, Akt, and mTOR must be shown and quantified here. It is useful to know whether the increase in the phospho amount is due to 1) an increase in the fraction that is phosphorylated (i.e., strictly signaling) or 2) due to increases in the total amount of the protein with the same faction phosphorylated (i.e., not likely signaling).

4) Line 222. This is too vague to really understand which test was used when. Explicitly add which statistical analysis and comparisons were performed for each panel in the figure legends.

5) Line 37. State the test used to assess fatigue resistance. This has a major impact on interpretation of findings.

6) Line 109. Explicitly state here in the Methods the cell specificity of this transgenic. Most promoters are expressed in more than one tissue, especially at various times during development. aP2 is no exception. Add that information.

7) Line 110. Specify the breeding scheme. Were heterozygous mice breed to each other? Were the WT mice littermates of the transgenic mice, or were they from different groups?

8) Line 144. How was the myosin heavy chain staining analyzed. What software was use? Was it automated or semi-automated? Were all the fibers of every muscle analyzed, or only a sub-set?

9) Line 160. Was pen/strep used? This is a common additive to C2C12 cultures. If used, state how much? If not used, state this explicitly.

10) Line 236. Calculate and provide in the text the % difference in grip strength. Knowing the precise amount will help put this measure in the context of the % changes in myosin heavy chain.

11) Line 237-238. Was the difference in wire-hanging statistically significant? This needs to be clarified, since no indices of significance are provided in the Figure 1B.

12) Line 282. Why do the authors conclude that CREG1 is upregulated in skeletal muscle instead of adipocytes, which are in whole skeletal muscles (PMID: 32624006, PMID: 34382019)? This should be thoroughly defended or at least acknowledged in Discussion. Further, for precision, it should be stated that the upregulation is in muscle “tissue”. The current phrasing suggests it is up in muscle cells.

13) Figure 1B. Add the SEM to this panel, as it states in the figure legend.

14) Figure 2G, H. Rearrange these graphs such that the order of mRNA matches that of the proteins in the graph above each. In other words, they should be from left to right: Myh7, Myh2, Myh1, and Myh4. A reader is obviously interested in comparing the changes in protein to that of mRNA.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jul 17;20(7):e0328485. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328485.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


4 Jun 2025

Reviewer #1: The Manuscript authored by Goto et al. aims to contribute to our understanding of CREG1's role in skeletal muscle function and differentiation, in addition to associated mechanisms. Overall, this paper is well-written and provides both in-vivo and in-vitro data to support the role of CREG1 in skeletal muscle.

We are thankful for the reviewers’ helpful comments that have improved the quality of our manuscript. Changes have been marked in red in the “Revised Article with Changes Highlighted” file.

As such, I will provide some minor revisions below:

1. Where appropriate, please provide more references to support claims made in the introduction and discussion. Examples include lines 51-54 when discussing sarcopenia, and lines: 374-375 when discussing the proportion of fiber types in athletes.

Thank you so much for your valuable comment. We agree with you. According to your suggestion, we have added the references (line 54 and line 395).

2. Please define all terms/names upon first use in the manuscript, e.g., line: 64, NTERA-2.

We thank the reviewer for these insightful comments. TERA2 is one of the oldest extant cell lines established from a human teratocarcinoma. NTERA-2 cells were re-established in culture from a xenograft of the TERA-2 cell line grown in a nude mouse. (PW Andrews. Human teratocarcinomas. 1988). Therefore, NTERA2 is a cell line name, not an abbreviation. We believe the current description is correct. We have checked the manuscript again to ensure that all terms/names are properly defined upon their first use.

3. Please add the year of publication when referencing studies by author name. E.g., "Song et al. (Year)"

Thank you so much for your valuable comment. We agree with you. According to your suggestion, we have added the year of publication in the manuscript (lines 79, 379, 407, 409, 440, 456 and 462).

4. Although soleus Myh1 expression was higher in Tg mice, it was not statistically significant as reported in the abstract. Please specify this in the abstract, results and discussion (that Myh1 trended towards higher but was not significant)

Thank you so much for your valuable suggestions. We agree with you. According to your suggestion, we have revised the abstract (Lines 38-39) and results (Lines 274-275). In response to the feedback from another reviewer, we have removed the discussion section.

5. Along the same lines, specify that MyoD1 trended towards lower in CREG1 knockdown cells but was also not significant

Thank you so much for your valuable comment. We agree with you. According to your suggestion, we have revised the abstract (line 42) and results (lines 338-340).

6. Line 368: should this say myh7, not myh1?

Thank you for providing these insights. We made a mistake with Myh1, and Myh7 is the correct notation. However, in accordance with the feedback from another reviewer, we have removed the relevant portion of the manuscript.

7. Line 391-393: "CREG1 is thought to be mainly supplied by the liver to other organs, including skeletal muscles, exogenous CREG1 may still influence skeletal muscle function in the absence of endogenous CREG1" - modify this sentence to specify that exogenous in this context means from non-muscle tissues (e.g., liver) and endogenous means produced within skeletal muscle.

Thank you for providing these insights. We agree with you. According to your suggestion, we have changed “CREG1 produced by non-muscle tissues may still influence skeletal muscle function in the absence of endogenous CREG1 in skeletal muscle (lines 412-414)”

8. Make a limitations section following the discussion and move the mention of the lack of muscle performance data (line 456) to this section

Thank you for providing these insights. We agree with you. According to your suggestion, we have made a limitation section (lines 481-486).

Reviewer #2: This manuscript by Goto et al. is aimed to determine the effect of tissue-specific CREG1 overexpression on skeletal muscle. Several points are unclear, and these should be addressed.

We are thankful for the reviewers’ helpful comments that have improved the quality of our manuscript. Changes have been marked in red in the “Revised Article with Changes Highlighted” file.

1) The conclusion that the increase in grip strength may be mediated by a shift in fiber type is not well supported. First, while it is true that fast-twitch fibers are often associated with greater maximal muscle strength, this is almost entirely explained by the fibers being larger. For example: PMID: 11148759, PMID: 21317219. There is no evidence provided that the muscles are larger. Indeed, in the transgenic, the soleus muscle are 15% smaller, while the EDL are 7.6% smaller (Table 1). Second, grip strength was only done with the forelimbs, which consist of almost entirely fast-twitch muscles (PMID: 22938020), like the plantaris of the hindlimb. Since the plantaris had no shift in myosin heavy chain (Fig 2), there is no rationale to presume that the myosin heavy chain composition of the forelimbs changed. Therefore, the conclusion that a shift in myosin heavy chain is mediating an increase in strength must either be supported with additional data or should be purged from this manuscript (Title, Abstract, Discussion)

We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful comments and have carefully considered the points raised. In accordance with your suggestion, we have removed the conclusion that a shift in myosin heavy chain mediates the increase in strength from the manuscript. According to your suggestion, we have revised title (lines 3-4), abstract (lines 45-46) and discussion section (lines 386-391).

2) All the individual data points must be shown for all the bar graphs. This is now common practice for rigorous presentation of data, and PLOS Data policy requires the authors to show the underlying data.

Thank you so much for your valuable comment on our study. According to your suggestion, we have revised the graph to all the individual data points.

3) Figure 3. The blots and calculations for the total amount of IGF2R, Akt, and mTOR must be shown and quantified here. It is useful to know whether the increase in the phospho amount is due to 1) an increase in the fraction that is phosphorylated (i.e., strictly signaling) or 2) due to increases in the total amount of the protein with the same faction phosphorylated (i.e., not likely signaling).

Thank you so much for your valuable comment on our study. According to your suggestion, we have added the results (lines 307-308), Fig 3D and 3E.

4) Line 222. This is too vague to really understand which test was used when. Explicitly add which statistical analysis and comparisons were performed for each panel in the figure legends.

Thank you so much for your valuable comment on our study. According to your suggestion, we have revised the Statistical analyses section and added the statistical analysis in the figure legends.

5) Line 37. State the test used to assess fatigue resistance. This has a major impact on interpretation of findings.

Thank you so much for your valuable comment on our study. According to your suggestion, we have revised the abstract (line 37).

6) Line 109. Explicitly state here in the Methods the cell specificity of this transgenic. Most promoters are expressed in more than one tissue, especially at various times during development. aP2 is no exception. Add that information.

Thank you for pointing this out. Unfortunately, we have not been able to investigate cell specificity in our transgenic mouse model. It has been previously demonstrated that aP2/FABP4 is not only expressed in adipocytes but also macrophages (Makowski L, et al. 2005, Yang J, et al. 2023). According to your suggestion, we have added the methods (Lines 109-110).

7) Line 110. Specify the breeding scheme. Were heterozygous mice breed to each other? Were the WT mice littermates of the mice, or were they from different groups?

Thank you so much for your valuable comment on our study. We crossed the heterozygous transgenic mice (Tg; 14 th generation) with their wild-type (WT) littermates, and used the resulting Tg mice and their WT littermates for the study. According to your suggestion, we have added the methods (lines 110-113).

8) Line 144. How was the myosin heavy chain staining analyzed. What software was use? Was it automated or semi-automated? Were all the fibers of every muscle analyzed, or only a sub-set?

We thank the reviewer for these insightful comments. Samples were visualized on a microscope and analyzed using ImageJ software in the IHC staining. All stained fibers in the muscle cross-section were counted manually. Previous studies have demonstrated that the number of fibers was counted and expressed as the proportion of the total number of fibers stained (Shibaguchi T, et al. 2019). Therefore, it can be considered that there is no issue with this method. According to your suggestion, we have added the methods (lines 162-164).

9) Line 160. Was pen/strep used? This is a common additive to C2C12 cultures. If used, state how much? If not used, state this explicitly.

Thank you so much for your valuable comment on our study. According to your suggestion, we have revised the methods for C2C12 cell culture (lines 172-173).

10) Line 236. Calculate and provide in the text the % difference in grip strength. Knowing the precise amount will help put this measure in the context of the % changes in myosin heavy chain.

We thank the reviewer for these insightful comments. In response to your suggestion, we have added the text on the percentage difference in grip strength (line 242).

11) Line 237-238. Was the difference in wire-hanging statistically significant? This needs to be clarified, since no indices of significance are provided in the Figure 1B.

We thank the reviewer for these insightful comments. As you pointed out, no statistical analysis was performed on the graph in Fig. 1B. In the wire-hanging test, the number of falls is used as the score without statistical processing. In fact, no statistical processing was performed in the wire-hanging test in the paper by Egawa T, et al. (2017) and Raymackers JM, et al. (2003). Therefore, we believe that the absence of statistical analysis in this graph is not a problem.

12) Line 282. Why do the authors conclude that CREG1 is upregulated in skeletal muscle instead of adipocytes, which are in whole skeletal muscles (PMID: 32624006, PMID: 34382019)? This should be thoroughly defended or at least acknowledged in Discussion. Further, for precision, it should be stated that the upregulation is in muscle “tissue”. The current phrasing suggests it is up in muscle cells.

Thank you so much for your valuable comment on our study. We were unable to elucidate the localization of skeletal muscle CREG1 by immunofluorescence staining in this study. However, we did not observe any intramuscular lipid droplets in the histological analysis. Therefore, we believe that the influence of CREG1-overexpressing adipocyte on total CREG1 expression was minimal, if any, in Tg skeletal muscle. So, we think that most of CREG1 protein detected in muscle lysates was that intracellularly produced in the muscle cells. We discussed the line 411-434. Additionally, exogenous CREG1 derived from other tissues via blood stream can be taken into muscle cells (Kusudo 2022), as we detected its processed form (~20 kD) (Fig. 3C). According to your suggestion, we have changed the “CREG1 upregulation in skeletal muscle enhances Akt-mTOR signaling” to “CREG1 upregulation in skeletal muscle tissue enhances Akt-mTOR signaling (line 292)”.

13) Figure 1B. Add the SEM to this panel, as it states in the figure legend.

We thank the reviewer for these insightful comments. As described in the methods, “Data are expressed as the average fall score, with each mouse starting with a score of 10, which was reduced by 1 after each fall. The average fall score at a given time during the test was calculated using the following equation: (10n−x)/n, where n is the number of animals and x is the cumulative number of falls.” Therefore, the average fall score is calculated by scoring the number of falls for each mouse, meaning there is no standard error. The papers by Egawa T, et al. (2017) and Raymackers JM et al. (2003), both of whom conducted the wire-hanging test, also do not report SEM. Accordingly, I am confident that the current graph is acceptable.

14) Figure 2G, H. Rearrange these graphs such that the order of mRNA matches that of the proteins in the graph above each. In other words, they should be from left to right: Myh7, Myh2, Myh1, and Myh4. A reader is obviously interested in comparing the changes in protein to that of mRNA.

Thank you so much for your valuable comment on our study. We agree with you. According to your suggestion, we have revised Figure 2G, 2H, results (line 272-273) and figure legends (line 287).

Decision Letter 1

Keisuke Hitachi

PONE-D-25-09063R1Cellular repressor of E1A-stimulated genes 1 enhances skeletal muscle performance through the stimulation of muscle differentiation and Akt-mTOR signaling pathway activationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Goto,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Thank you for revising your paper. However, there still seem to be some minor concerns. Please revise your manuscript according to the reviewers' comments before publication.==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 30 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Keisuke Hitachi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: This reviewer appreciates the revisions to the manuscript. However, one issue remains -- analysis of the wire hanging test. If statistics cannot be performed on the data in Fig 1B, then it is not appropriate to conclude that the WT is different than Tg group. By convention in rigorous scientific literature, quantitative data is not considered different unless it is statistically different. Therefore, this data should additionally be presented in a manner where proper statistics can be calculated, for example as was done in Ref #23, Egawa et al. Then, conclusions throughout the manuscript regarding the wire hang test must be based only on data where statistics are performed.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2025 Jul 17;20(7):e0328485. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0328485.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


30 Jun 2025

We thank the reviewer for these insightful comments. We used the analysis methods from previous study (Raymackers JM, et al. (2003)) to present Figure 1b. Following your suggestion, we reanalyzed the data using Egawa et al.’s method and found no significant differences in the longest holding time or holding impulse. Therefore, we have removed Figure 1b and the description of wire hanging in the text. Changes have been marked in red in the “Revised Article with Changes Highlighted” file.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 20250625.docx

pone.0328485.s005.docx (13.6KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Keisuke Hitachi

Cellular repressor of E1A-stimulated genes 1 enhances skeletal muscle performance through the stimulation of muscle differentiation and Akt-mTOR signaling pathway activation

PONE-D-25-09063R2

Dear Dr. Goto,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Keisuke Hitachi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

In the PDF, Figure 1 was located at the end of the figures, so please pay attention to the order of the figures in subsequent proofs, etc.

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Keisuke Hitachi

PONE-D-25-09063R2

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Goto,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Keisuke Hitachi

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Raw images. Raw data images of the original immunohistochemistry and western blot images.

    (PDF)

    pone.0328485.s001.pdf (1.8MB, pdf)
    File S1. Supporting data: Table S1. Data for Figure 1.

    Table S2. Data analysis results for Figure 1 using Student’s t-test. Table S3. Data for Figure 2C. Table S4. Data analysis results for Figure 2C using Student’s t-test. Table S5. Data for Figure 2D. Table S6. Data analysis results for Figure 2D using Student’s t-test. Table S7. Data for Figure 2E. Table S8. Data analysis results for Figure 2E using Student’s t-test. Table S9. Data for Figure 2F. Table S10. Data analysis results for Figure 2F using Student’s t-test. Table S11. Data for Figure 2G. Table S12. Data analysis results for Figure 2G using Student’s t-test. Table S13. Data for Figure 2H. Table S14. Data analysis results for Figure 2H using Student’s t-test. S15. Data for Figure 3A-C. Table S16. Data analysis results for Figure 3A-C using Student’s t-test. Table S17. Data for Figure 3D. Table S18. Data analysis results for Figure 3D using Student’s t-test. Table S19. Data for Figure 4A-B. Table S20. Data analysis results for Figure 4A-B using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey–Kramer test. Table S21. Data for Figure 4C-D. Table S22. Data analysis results for Figure 4C-D using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey–Kramer test. Table S23. Data for Figure 5A-C. Table S24. Data analysis results for Figure 5A-C using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey–Kramer test.

    (PDF)

    pone.0328485.s002.pdf (140.9KB, pdf)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to reviewers 20250625.docx

    pone.0328485.s005.docx (13.6KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES