4.5 Article

High-protein diets differentially modulate protein content and protein synthesis in visceral and peripheral tissues in rats

期刊

NUTRITION
卷 25, 期 9, 页码 932-939

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.nut.2009.01.013

关键词

Protein kinetics; High-protein diet; Anabolism; Tissue-specific regulations; Liver metabolism; Muscle protein fractions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: High-protein diets give rise to increased amplitude in the diurnal cycling of protein gains and losses at the whole-body level, but the tissue localization and mechanisms underlying these metabolic adaptations remain unclear. We investigated tissue-specific responses to increasing protein intakes in rats. Methods: Protein synthesis rates (flooding dose with C-13-valine) and accretion were assessed in individual tissues of fasted or fed rats (n = 32) after a 2-wk adaptation to a normal- or high-protein (HP) diet. Results: In livers of HP rats, a strong inhibition of protein synthesis rates (-34%) occurred in the fasted and fed states, whereas a higher protein content (+10%) was observed. In the kidneys, a slight inhibition of synthesis rates after the HP diet was also observed but remained without effect on kidney protein pool size. Stomach and skin protein synthesis rates were significantly increased under HP conditions, whereas protein anabolism in skeletal muscle remained insensitive to the dietary protein level. This was also true for specific muscle protein fractions: myosin, mitochondrial, or sarcoplasmic protein synthesis rates were influenced by neither the dietary protein level nor the nutritional status. Conclusion: Modulation of protein kinetics and accretion by the HP diet is tissue-specific and the liver plays a critical role in such adaptations in a unique situation associating an inhibition of protein synthesis and protein pool expansion. The mechanisms underlying these changes and their physiologic incidence remain to be elucidated. (C) 2009 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

4.5
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