4.6 Review

AICAr, a Widely Used AMPK Activator with Important AMPK-Independent Effects: A Systematic Review

期刊

CELLS
卷 10, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/cells10051095

关键词

AICAr; AMPK; metabolism; acadesine; exercise; cell cycle; purine; pyrimidine; cancer; leukemia

资金

  1. Croatian Science Foundation [IP-2016-064581, DOK-2018-01-9599, DOK-2020-01-2873]
  2. European Union through the ESF Operational Programme Efficient Human Resources 2014-2020
  3. Scientific Centre of Excellence for Basic, Clinical and Translational Neuroscience (project Experimental and clinical research of hypoxic-ischemic damage in perinatal and adult brain) [GA KK01.1.1.01.0007]
  4. European Union through the European Regional Development Fund)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AICAr is commonly used as a pharmacological modulator of AMPK activity, but some effects attributed to AMPK activation have been found to be AMPK-independent. Caution is needed when interpreting studies based on AICAr, especially in the context of understanding the AMPK signaling pathway.
5-Aminoimidazole-4-carboxamide ribonucleoside (AICAr) has been one of the most commonly used pharmacological modulators of AMPK activity. The majority of early studies on the role of AMPK, both in the physiological regulation of metabolism and in cancer pathogenesis, were based solely on the use of AICAr as an AMPK-activator. Even with more complex models of AMPK downregulation and knockout being introduced, AICAr remained a regular starting point for many studies focusing on AMPK biology. However, there is an increasing number of studies showing that numerous AICAr effects, previously attributed to AMPK activation, are in fact AMPK-independent. This review aims to give an overview of the present knowledge on AMPK-dependent and AMPK-independent effects of AICAr on metabolism, hypoxia, exercise, nucleotide synthesis, and cancer, calling for caution in the interpretation of AICAr-based studies in the context of understanding AMPK signaling pathway.

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