4.6 Article

Inverse relationship between brain glucose and ketone metabolism in adults during short-term moderate dietary ketosis: A dual tracer quantitative positron emission tomography study

期刊

JOURNAL OF CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW AND METABOLISM
卷 37, 期 7, 页码 2485-2493

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X16669366

关键词

Metabolism; ketone; glucose; ketogenic diet; neuroimaging; acetoacetate

资金

  1. CIHR
  2. CFI
  3. Sojecci 2
  4. Alzheimer Association USA
  5. FRQS
  6. Universite de Sherbrooke

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ketones (principally -hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate (AcAc)) are an important alternative fuel to glucose for the human brain, but their utilisation by the brain remains poorly understood. Our objective was to use positron emission tomography (PET) to assess the impact of diet-induced moderate ketosis on cerebral metabolic rate of acetoacetate (CMRa) and glucose (CMRglc) in healthy adults. Ten participants (35 +/- 15 y) received a very high fat ketogenic diet (KD) (4.5:1; lipid:protein plus carbohydrates) for four days. CMRa and CMRglc were quantified by PET before and after the KD with the tracers, C-11-AcAc and F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose (F-18-FDG), respectively. During the KD, plasma ketones increased 8-fold (p=0.005) while plasma glucose decreased by 24% (p=0.005). CMRa increased 6-fold (p=0.005), whereas CMRglc decreased by 20% (p=0.014) on the KD. Plasma ketones were positively correlated with CMRa (r=0.93; p<0.0001). After four days on the KD, CMRa represented 17% of whole brain energy requirements in healthy adults with a 2-fold difference across brain regions (12-24%). The CMR of ketones (AcAc and -hydroxybutyrate combined) while on the KD was estimated to represent about 33% of brain energy requirements or approximately double the CMRa. Whether increased ketone availability raises CMR of ketones to the same extent in older people as observed here or in conditions in which chronic brain glucose hypometabolism is present remains to be determined.

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