Differences in Immune Response During Competition and Preparation Phase in Elite Rowers

Daniel Alexander Bizjak; Gunnar Treff; Martina Zügel; Uwe Schumann; Kay Winkert; Marion Schneider; Dietmar Abendroth; Jürgen Michael Steinacker

doi:10.3389/fphys.2021.803863

Differences in Immune Response During Competition and Preparation Phase in Elite Rowers

Front Physiol. 2021 Dec 17:12:803863. doi: 10.3389/fphys.2021.803863. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Daniel Alexander Bizjak¹, Gunnar Treff¹, Martina Zügel¹, Uwe Schumann¹, Kay Winkert¹, Marion Schneider², Dietmar Abendroth³, Jürgen Michael Steinacker¹

Affiliations

¹ Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Sports and Rehabilitation Medicine, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
² Department of Anaesthesiology, Division of Experimental Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.
³ Department of Surgery, University Hospital Ulm, Ulm, Germany.

Abstract

Background: Metabolic stress is high during training and competition of Olympic rowers, but there is a lack of biomedical markers allowing to quantify training load on the molecular level. We aimed to identify such markers applying a complex approach involving inflammatory and immunologic variables. Methods: Eleven international elite male rowers (age 22.7 ± 2.4 yrs.; VO₂max 71 ± 5 ml·min^-1·kg^-1) of the German National Rowing team were monitored at competition phase (COMP) vs. preparation phase (PREP), representing high vs. low load. Perceived stress and recovery were assessed by a Recovery Stress Questionnaire for Athletes (RESTQ-76 Sport). Immune cell activation (dendritic cell (DC)/macrophage/monocytes/T-cells) was evaluated via fluorescent activated cell sorting. Cytokines, High-Mobility Group Protein B1 (HMGB1), cell-free DNA (cfDNA), creatine kinase (CK), uric acid (UA), and kynurenine (KYN) were measured in venous blood. Results: Rowers experienced more general stress and less recovery during COMP, but sports-related stress and recovery did not differ from PREP. During COMP, DC/macrophage/monocyte and T-regulatory cells (T_reg-cell) increased (p = 0.001 and 0.010). HMGB1 and cfDNA increased in most athletes during COMP (p = 0.001 and 0.048), while CK, UA, and KYN remained unaltered (p = 0.053, 0.304, and 0.211). Pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1β (p = 0.002), TNF-α (p < 0.001), and the chemokine IL-8 (p = 0.001) were elevated during COMP, while anti-inflammatory Il-10 was lower (p = 0.002). Conclusion: COMP resulted in an increase in biomarkers reflecting tissue damage, with plausible evidence of immune cell activation that appeared to be compensated by anti-inflammatory mechanisms, such as T_reg-cell proliferation. We suggest an anti-inflammatory and immunological matrix approach to optimize training load quantification in elite athletes.

Keywords: immune cells; inflammation; load management; recovery; rowing; stress assessment.