RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The current morphological condition of an individual is described by a somatotype, which is a three-number scale. The endomorph, mesomorph and ectomorph components are presented in the same sequence, and each number corresponds to one of the three basic components of body composition. METHODS: We recruited 50 healthy male subjects with a mean age of 24.10 ± 4.55 yrs. Somatotype was determined by the Heath and Carter method. Impulse oscillometry was performed followed by spirometry according to the European Respiratory Society (ERS) or American Thoracic Society (ATS) guidelines. Resistance at 5 Hz (R5) %pred, R20%pred, R5-R20, X5%pred, X20, area of reactance (Ax) and resonant frequency (Fres) were obtained by doing impulse oscillometry. Slow vital capacity (SVC), forced vital capacity (FVC), forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV1), FEV1/FVC ratio and maximum mid-expiratory flow (MMEF) were assessed by doing spirometry. RESULTS: Endomorphs (0.05 (0.00-0.09) vs 0.01 (0.00-0.04); P < 0.0001) and mesomorphs (0.04 (0.000.09) vs 0.01 (0.00-0.04); P = 0.002) had significantly higher R5-R20 than ectomorphs. Similarly, endomorphs (0.32 (0.07-0.82) vs 0.15 (0.08-0.35); P = 0.001) and mesomorphs (0.28 (0.17-0.64) vs 0.15 (0.08-0.35); P = 0.015) also showed significantly higher Ax than ectomorphs, Fres of endomorphs (15.37 (8.43-21.85) vs 10.08 (8.94-14.30); P < 0.0001) and mesomorphs (14.32 (10.24-20.86) vs 10.08 (8.94-14.30); P < 0.0001) were significantly high than ectomorphs. Moreover, spirometric measures reveal significant variation in which mesomorphs had significantly higher values of % predicted of FVC than ectomorphs (92.49 ± 7.211 vs 83.86 ± 7.861; P = 0.042) and the ratio of FEV1 to FVC was significantly higher in ectomorphs than in endomorphs (89.00 ± 5.80 vs 85.04 ± 5.73; P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Peripheral airway dysfunction was observed in endomorphs and mesomorphs as compared to ectomorphs. Mesomorphs had a relatively higher FVC that may be due to their greater muscular strength.
RESUMO
Genome function is dynamically regulated in part by chromatin, which consists of the histones, non-histone proteins and RNA molecules that package DNA. Studies in Caenorhabditis elegans and Drosophila melanogaster have contributed substantially to our understanding of molecular mechanisms of genome function in humans, and have revealed conservation of chromatin components and mechanisms. Nevertheless, the three organisms have markedly different genome sizes, chromosome architecture and gene organization. On human and fly chromosomes, for example, pericentric heterochromatin flanks single centromeres, whereas worm chromosomes have dispersed heterochromatin-like regions enriched in the distal chromosomal 'arms', and centromeres distributed along their lengths. To systematically investigate chromatin organization and associated gene regulation across species, we generated and analysed a large collection of genome-wide chromatin data sets from cell lines and developmental stages in worm, fly and human. Here we present over 800 new data sets from our ENCODE and modENCODE consortia, bringing the total to over 1,400. Comparison of combinatorial patterns of histone modifications, nuclear lamina-associated domains, organization of large-scale topological domains, chromatin environment at promoters and enhancers, nucleosome positioning, and DNA replication patterns reveals many conserved features of chromatin organization among the three organisms. We also find notable differences in the composition and locations of repressive chromatin. These data sets and analyses provide a rich resource for comparative and species-specific investigations of chromatin composition, organization and function.
