4.6 Article

Enhanced Mitochondrial Superoxide Scavenging Does Not Improve Muscle Insulin Action in the High Fat-Fed Mouse

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 5, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0126732

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [DK054902, DK059637, DK007061, DK073488]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Improving mitochondrial oxidant scavenging may be a viable strategy for the treatment of insulin resistance and diabetes. Mice overexpressing the mitochondrial matrix isoform of superoxide dismutase (sod2(tg) mice) and/or transgenically expressing catalase within the mitochondrial matrix (mcat(tg) mice) have increased scavenging of O-2(.-) and H2O2, respectively. Furthermore, muscle insulin action is partially preserved in high fat (HF)-fed mcat(tg) mice. The goal of the current study was to test the hypothesis that increased O-2(._) scavenging alone or in combination with increased H2O2 scavenging (mtAO mice) enhances in vivo muscle insulin action in the HF-fed mouse. Insulin action was examined in conscious, unrestrained and unstressed wild type (WT), sod2(tg), mcattg and mtAO mice using hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamps (insulin clamps) combined with radioactive glucose tracers following sixteen weeks of normal chow or HF (60% calories from fat) feeding. Glucose infusion rates, whole body glucose disappearance, and muscle glucose uptake during the insulin clamp were similar in chow- and HF-fed WT and sod2(tg) mice. Consistent with our previous work, HF-fed mcat(tg) mice had improved muscle insulin action, however, an additive effect was not seen in mtAO mice. Insulin-stimulated Akt phosphorylation in muscle from clamped mice was consistent with glucose flux measurements. These results demonstrate that increased O-2(._) scavenging does not improve muscle insulin action in the HF-fed mouse alone or when coupled to increased H2O2 scavenging.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available