4.7 Article

Methylglyoxal-induced glycation changes adipose tissue vascular architecture, flow and expansion, leading to insulin resistance

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-01730-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology [UID/NEU/04539/2013]
  2. QREN-COMPETE (project DoIT- Diamarker: a consortium for the discovery of novel biomarker in diabetes) [POCI-01-0145-FEDER-007440]
  3. Faculty of Medicine, University of Coimbra
  4. [SFRH/BD/101172/2014]
  5. [SFRH/BPD/104881/2014]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Microvascular dysfunction has been suggested to trigger adipose tissue dysfunction in obesity. This study investigates the hypothesis that glycation impairs microvascular architecture and expandability with an impact on insulin signalling. Animal models supplemented with methylglyoxal (MG), maintained with a high-fat diet (HFD) or both (HFDMG) were studied for periepididymal adipose (pEAT) tissue hypoxia and local and systemic insulin resistance. Dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) was used to quantify blood flow in vivo, showing MG-induced reduction of pEAT blood flow. Increased adipocyte size and leptin secretion were observed only in rats feeding the high-fat diet, without the development of hypoxia. In turn, hypoxia was only observed when MG was combined (HFDMG group), being associated with impaired activation of the insulin receptor (Tyr1163), glucose intolerance and systemic and muscle insulin resistance. Accordingly, the adipose tissue angiogenic assay has shown decreased capillarization after dose-dependent MG exposure and glyoxalase-1 inhibition. Thus, glycation impairs adipose tissue capillarization and blood flow, hampering its expandability during a high-fat diet challenge and leading to hypoxia and insulin resistance. Such events have systemic repercussions in glucose metabolism and may lead to the onset of unhealthy obesity and progression to type 2 diabetes.

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