4.6 Article

Anemic Copper-Deficient Rats, but Not Mice, Display Low Hepcidin Expression and High Ferroportin Levels

期刊

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 140, 期 4, 页码 723-730

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3945/jn.109.117077

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [DK080706, HD039708, HD055423]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The transmembrane protein ferroportin (Fpn) is essential for iron efflux from the liver, spleen, and duodenum. Fpn is regulated predominantly by the circulating iron regulatory hormone hepcidin, which binds to cell surface Fpn, initiating its degradation. Accordingly, when hepcidin concentrations decrease, Fpn levels increase. A previous study found that Fpn levels were not elevated in copper-deficient (CuD) mice that had anemia, a condition normally associated with dramatic reductions in hepcidin. Lack of change in Fpn levels may be because CuD mice do not display reduced concentrations of plasma iron (holotransferrin), a modulator of hepcidin expression. Here, we examined Fpn protein levels and hepcidin expression in CuD rats, which exhibit reduced plasma iron concentrations along with anemia. We also examined hepcidin expression in anemic CuD mice with normal plasma iron levels. We found that CuD rats had higher liver and spleen Fpn levels and markedly lower hepatic hepcidin mRNA expression than did copper-adequate (CuA) rats. In contrast, hepcidin levels did not differ between CuD and CuA mice. To examine potential mediators of the reduced hepcidin expression in CuD rats, we measured levels of hepatic transferrin receptor 2 (TfR2), a putative iron sensor that links holotransferrin to hepcidin production, and transcript abundance of bone morphogenic protein 6 (BMP6), a key endogenous positive regulator of hepcidin production. Diminished hepcidin expression in CuD rats was associated with lower levels of TfR2, but not BMP6. Our data suggest that holotransferrin and TfR2, rather than anemia or BMP6, are signals for hepcidin synthesis during copper deficiency. J. Nutr. 140: 723-730, 2010.

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

4.6
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