4.7 Review

Leucine Supplementation in Cancer Cachexia: Mechanisms and a Review of the Pre-Clinical Literature

Journal

NUTRIENTS
Volume 14, Issue 14, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/nu14142824

Keywords

amino acids; pre-clinical; mTOR; skeletal muscle; atrophy; inflammation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cancer cachexia is a syndrome of bodily wasting and functional decline. Nutritional support, particularly amino acid supplementation, is important in managing cachexia. Leucine has been found to increase protein synthesis and decrease degradation. Current research suggests that a leucine-rich diet can attenuate cachexia symptoms, but further studies are needed to explore its effects on protein turnover, immune response, and tumor growth.
Cancer cachexia (CC) is a complex syndrome of bodily wasting and progressive functional decline. Unlike starvation, cachexia cannot be reversed by increased energy intake alone. Nonetheless, targeted nutritional support is a necessary component in multimodal syndrome management. Due to the highly catabolic nature of cancer cachexia, amino acid supplementation has been proposed. Interestingly, leucine has been found to increase protein synthesis and decrease protein degradation via mTORC1 pathway activation. Multiple pre-clinical studies have explored the impact of leucine supplementation in cachectic tumor-bearing hosts. Here, we provide an overview of leucine's proposed modes of action to preserve lean mass in cachexia and review the current pre-clinical literature related to leucine supplementation during CC. Current research indicates that a leucine-rich diet may attenuate CC symptomology; however, these works are difficult to compare due to methodological differences. There is need for further pre-clinical work exploring leucine's potential ability to modulate protein turnover and immune response during CC, as well as the impact of additive leucine on tumor growth.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available