Table 2.

The effect of ageing on myonuclear content and domain size and satellite cell content in humans

Author	Age, years (number)	Gender	Muscle	Muscle fibre size	Myonuclear content	Myonuclear domain	SC number
Vassilopoulos et al. (1977) 68	12–30 (6) vs. 60–71 (6)	M/W	VL	Mixed: ↔	Mixed: ↔	NM	NM
Manta et al. (1987) 69	17–30 (4) vs. >60 (7)	M/W	VL	Mixed: ↓	Mixed: ↔	Mixed: ↑	NM
Hikida et al. (1998) 70	17–26 (7) vs. 59–71 (8)	M	VL	Mixed, I, II,: ↓	Mixed: ↔	NM	Mixed: ↔
Roth et al. (2000) 71	22–28 (7) vs. 66–72 (8) 25–27 (7) vs. 64–71 (7)	M W	VL	NM	NM	NM	Mixed: ↔ Mixed: ↔
Renault et al. (2002) 72	22–24 (6) vs. 70–78 (6)	M/W	Biceps Masseter	NM	Mixed: ↔ Mixed: ↔	NM	Mixed: ↓ Mixed: ↓
Sajko et al. (2002) 73	24–38 (4) vs. 67–73 (6)	M	VL	NM	Mixed: ↓	NM	Mixed: ↓
Kadi et al. (2004) 74	23–29 (15) vs. 70–78 (13) 20–26 (16) vs. 73–79 (14)	M W	VL	NM	Mixed: ↑ Mixed: ↑	NM	Mixed: ↓ Mixed: ↓
Sajko et al. (2004) 75	26–30 (6) vs. 69–71 (6)	M	VL	NM	NM	NM	Mixed: ↓
Dreyer et al. (2006) 76	21–35 (10) vs. >60 (9)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	Mixed: ↔	NM	Mixed: ↔
Petrella et al. (2006) 77	20–35 (15) vs. 60–75 (13) 20–35 (16) vs. 60–75 (14)	M W	VL	Mixed: ↔ Mixed: ↔	Mixed: ↔ Mixed: ↔	Mixed: ↔ Mixed: ↔	Mixed: ↔ Mixed: ↔
Mohamed et al. (2007) 78	24–50 (7) vs 65–81 (9)	NR	Triceps	Mixed: ↓	NM	NM	Mixed: ↓
Verdijk et al. (2007) 79	19–21 (8) vs. 69–71 (8)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	I, II: ↑	I, II: ↓	I: ↔, II: ↓
Cristea et al. (2010) a , 80	21–32 (6) vs. 72–96 (9) 24–32 (6) vs. 65–96 (9)	M W	VL	I: ↑, II: ↓ I: ↑, II: ↓	I: ↑, II: ↔ I: ↑, II: ↔	I: ↑, II: ↓ I, II: ↔	NM
McKay et al. (2012) 81	18–24 (9) vs. 66–74 (9)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	NM	I: ↔, II: ↓	Mixed, II: ↓, I: ↔
Verdijk et al. (2012) 63	28–34 (8) vs. 73–77 (8)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	I: ↔, II: ↓	I: ↔, II: ↔	I: ↔, II: ↓
Walker et al. (2012) 82	25–29 (5) vs. 68–72 (6) 25–29 (5) vs. 68–72 (6)	M W	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓ I: ↔, II: ↓	Mixed: ↔ Mixed: ↔	Mixed: ↓ Mixed: ↔	Mixed: ↔ Mixed: ↓
Suetta et al. (2013) 42	21–30 (11) vs. 61–74 (9)	M	VL	I, II: ↔	NM	NM	I, II: ↔
McKay et al. (2014) 83	21–27 (12) vs. 62–70 (12)	M	VL	I, II: ↔	I, II: ↔	I, II: ↔	I, II: ↔
Snijders et al. (2014) 65	21–23 (10) vs. 72–74 (10)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	NM	NM	I: ↔, II: ↓
Verdijk et al. (2014) 84	18–49 (50) vs. ≥70 (49)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	I: ↔, II: ↓	I, II: ↔	I: ↔, II: ↓
Verdijk et al. (2016) 85	24–28 (14) vs. 71–73 (16)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	I, II: ↓	NM	I: ↔, II: ↓
Nederveen et al. (2016) 86	21–24 (23) vs. 63–71 (22)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	NM	NM	I: ↔, II: ↓
Kramer et al. (2017) 60	18–25 (15) vs. ≥65 (15)	W	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	I: ↔, II: ↓	I: ↑, II: ↔	I, II: ↔
Kelly et al. (2018) 87	22–30 (27) vs. 62–70 (91)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	I, II: ↔	I: ↔, II: ↓	I, II: ↔
Reidy et al. (2018) 46	18–35 (14) vs. 60–75 (9)	M/W	VL	Mixed: ↔	NM	NM	Mixed, I, II: ↔
Karlsen et al. (2019) 88	19–23 (9) vs. 70–84 (18)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	I: ↔, II: ↓	I: ↔, II: ↓	I: ↔, II: ↓
Naro et al. (2019) b , 89	22–28 (6) vs. 81–96 (6)	M/W	VL	I, II: ↔	I, II: ↔	I, II: ↔	NM
Karlsen et al. (2020) 90	22–28 (7) vs. 63–71 (19)	M	VL	I: ↔, II: ↓	NM	NM	Mixed, I: ↔, II: ↓
Perez et al. (2021) 91	20–24 (6) vs. 65–78 (11)	M/W	VL	NM	NM	NM	Mixed: ↓

↑, significantly higher compared with control values; ↓, significantly lower compared with control values; ↔, no difference between experiment and control values; I, Type I muscle fibres; II, Type II muscle fibres; M, men; M/W, men and women combined; Mixed, mixed muscle fibre type; NM, not measured; VL, vastus lateralis; W, women.

^a This study is performed in single muscle fibre.

^b This study is performed in both muscle cross‐section and single muscle fibre.