4.6 Article

Does impaired mitochondrial function affect insulin signaling and action in cultured human skeletal muscle cells?

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00267.2007

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0601943B] Funding Source: researchfish
  2. Wellcome Trust [074454] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insulin-resistant type 2 diabetic patients have been reported to have impaired skeletal muscle mitochondrial respiratory function. A key question is whether decreased mitochondrial respiration contributes directly to the decreased insulin action. To address this, a model of impaired cellular respiratory function was established by incubating human skeletal muscle cell cultures with the mitochondrial inhibitor sodium azide and examining the effects on insulin action. Incubation of human skeletal muscle cells with 50 and 75 mu M azide resulted in 48 +/- 3% and 56 +/- 1% decreases, respectively, in respiration compared with untreated cells mimicking the level of impairment seen in type 2 diabetes. Under conditions of decreased respiratory chain function, insulin-independent (basal) glucose uptake was significantly increased. Basal glucose uptake was 325 +/- 39 pmol/min/mg (mean +/- SE) in untreated cells. This increased to 669 +/- 69 and 823 +/- 83 pmol/min/mg in cells treated with 50 and 75 mu M azide, respectively (vs. untreated, both P < 0.0001). Azide treatment was also accompanied by an increase in basal glycogen synthesis and phosphorylation of AMP-activated protein kinase. However, there was no decrease in glucose uptake following insulin exposure, and insulin-stimulated phosphorylation of Akt was normal under these conditions. GLUT1 mRNA expression remained unchanged, whereas GLUT4 mRNA expression increased following azide treatment. In conclusion, under conditions of impaired mitochondrial respiration there was no evidence of impaired insulin signaling or glucose uptake following insulin exposure in this model system.

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