4.6 Article

Red blood cells as glucose carriers to the human brain: Modulation of cerebral activity by erythrocyte exchange transfusion in Glut1 deficiency (G1D)

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0271678X221146121

关键词

Glucose; flux; exchange transfusion; electroencephalography; erythrocyte

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Red blood cells in the brain have close contact with capillary endothelium, providing a pathway for metabolic substrate transfer. Replacing deficient red cells in individuals with glucose transporter I deficiency through exchange transfusion can improve cognitive and quality-of-life measures.
Red blood cells circulating through the brain are briefly but closely apposed to the capillary endothelium. We hypothesized that this contact provides a nearly direct pathway for metabolic substrate transfer to neural cells that complements the better characterized plasma to endothelium transfer. While brain function is considered independent of normal fluctuations in blood glucose concentration, this is not borne out by persons with glucose transporter I (GLUT1) deficiency (G1D). In them, encephalopathy is often ameliorated by meal or carbohydrate administration, and this enabled us to test our hypothesis: Since red blood cells contain glucose, and since the red cells of G1D individuals are also deficient in GLUT1, replacing them with normal donor cells via exchange transfusion could augment erythrocyte to neural cell glucose transport via mass action in the setting of unaltered erythrocyte count or plasma glucose abundance. This motivated us to perform red blood cell exchange in 3 G1D persons. There were rapid, favorable and unprecedented changes in cognitive, electroencephalographic and quality-of-life measures. The hypothesized transfer mechanism was further substantiated by in vitro measurement of direct erythrocyte to endothelial cell glucose flux. The results also indicate that the adult intellect is capable of significant enhancement without deliberate practice.

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