4.5 Article

T3 and the thyroid hormone β-receptor agonist GC-1 differentially affect metabolic capacity and oxidative damage in rat tissues

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
卷 212, 期 7, 页码 986-993

出版社

COMPANY BIOLOGISTS LTD
DOI: 10.1242/jeb.021808

关键词

thyroid hormone; thyroid hormone agonist; oxidative metabolism; oxidative damage

类别

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of University
  2. Scientific and Technological Research.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We compared the changes in tissue aerobic metabolism and oxidative damage elicited by hypothyroid rat treatment with T-3 and its analog GC-1. Aerobic capacities, evaluated by cytochrome oxidase activities, were increased more by T-3 than by GC-1. Furthermore, the response of the tissues to T-3 was similar, whereas the response to GC-1 was high in liver, low in muscle and scarce in heart. Both treatments induced increases in ADP-stimulated O-2 consumption, which were consistent with those in aerobic capacities. However, unlike T-3, GC-1 differentially affected pyruvate/malate- and succinate-supported respiration, suggesting that respiratory chain components do not respond as a unit to GC-1 stimulation. According to the positive relationship between electron carrier levels and rates of mitochondrial generation of oxidative species, the most extensive damage to lipids and proteins was found in T-3-treated rats. Examination of antioxidant enzyme activities and scavenger levels did not clarify whether oxidative damage extent also depended on different antioxidant system effectiveness. Conversely, the analysis of parameters determining tissue susceptibility to oxidants showed that pro-oxidant capacity was lower in GC-1- than in T-3-treated rats, while antioxidant capacity was similar in treatment groups. Interestingly, both agonists decreased serum cholesterol levels, but only GC-1 restored euthyroid values of heart rate and indices of tissue oxidative damage, indicating that GC-1 is able to lower cholesterolemia, bypassing detrimental effects of T-3.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据