4.7 Article

Human Urinary Metabolomic Profile of PPARα Induced Fatty Acid β-Oxidation

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 4293-4300

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr9004103

关键词

metabolomics; pharmacometabolomics; PPAR; fenofibrate; random forests

资金

  1. Czech Ministry of Education [VZ MSM0021620820]
  2. Intramural Research Program of the Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health
  3. National Institute of General Medical Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Activation of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPAR alpha) is associated with increased fatty acid catabolism and is commonly targeted for the treatment of hyperlipidemia. To identify latent, endogenous biomarkers of PPAR alpha activation and hence increased fatty acid beta-oxidation, healthy human volunteers were given fenofibrate orally for 2 weeks and their urine was profiled by UPLC-QTOFMS. Biomarkers identified by the machine learning algorithm random forests included significant depletion by day 14 of both pantothenic acid (>5-fold) and acetylcarnitine (>20-fold), observations that are consistent with known targets of PPAR alpha including pantothenate kinase and genes encoding proteins involved in the transport and synthesis of acylcarnitines. It was also concluded that serum cholesterol (-12.7%), triglycerides (-25.6%), uric acid (-34.7%), together with urinary propylcarnitine (>10-fold), isobutyrylcarnitine (>2.5-fold), (S)-(+)-2-methylbutyrylcarnitine (5-fold), and isovalerylcarnitine (>5-fold) were all reduced by day 14. Specificity of these biomarkers as indicators of PPAR alpha activation was demonstrated using the Ppara-null mouse. Urinary pantothenic acid and acylcarnitines may prove useful indicators of PPAR alpha-induced fatty acid beta-oxidation in humans. This study illustrates the utility of a pharmacometabolomic approach to understand drug effects on lipid metabolism in both human populations and in inbred mouse models.

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

4.7
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