4.7 Article

Effect of a somatostatin infusion on circulating levels of adipokines in obese women

期刊

METABOLISM-CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL
卷 61, 期 12, 页码 1797-1802

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.metabol.2012.05.019

关键词

Somatostatin; Adiponectin; leptin; TNF-alpha; Obesity

资金

  1. Progetti di Ricerca Corrente, Istituto Auxologico Italiano, IRCCS, Milan, Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Changes in circulating levels of many adipocyte-derived peptides, including adipokines such as adiponectin, leptin and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpha), have been reported in obesity (OB). Somatostatin (SRIF) inhibits circulating levels of adiponectin and leptin in lean (LN) subjects, but the effect of a SRIF infusion on these adipokines, including TNF-alpha, in OB is to date unknown. Methods. Ten young women (5 OB and 5 LN) were studied. All subjects underwent an infusion of SRIF (9 mu g/kg/h i.v., over 60 min), with blood samples drawn prior to and at different time intervals after SRIF administration. Plasma levels of adiponectin, leptin and TNF-alpha were measured at each interval. Results. Basal levels of leptin and TNF-alpha were significantly higher in OB than LN women, whereas levels of adiponectin were significantly lower in OB than LN subjects. SRIF significantly inhibited plasma concentrations of adiponectin (at 60 min) in both OB and LN women, without affecting those of leptin and TNF-alpha in either group. In LN subjects, the inhibitory effect of SRIF on plasma adiponectin persisted up to 150 min, whereas SRIF infusion withdrawal in OB women resulted in a prompt restoration of basal levels of the adipokine. Conclusions. Plasma concentrations of leptin and TNF-alpha, which are higher in OB than LN subjects, are unaffected by a SRIF infusion, which, in contrast, inhibits circulating levels of adiponectin in both groups, with a delayed return to the baseline secretion of the adipokine in LN subjects. (C) 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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