4.6 Article

CMO1 deficiency abolishes vitamin A production from β-carotene and alters lipid metabolism in mice

期刊

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 282, 期 46, 页码 -

出版社

AMER SOC BIOCHEMISTRY MOLECULAR BIOLOGY INC
DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M706763200

关键词

-

资金

  1. NEI NIH HHS [R01 EY020551] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carotenoids are currently investigated regarding their potential to lower the risk of chronic disease and to combat vitamin A deficiency in humans. These plant-derived compounds must be cleaved and metabolically converted by intrinsic carotenoid oxygenases to support the panoply of vitamin A-dependent physiological processes. Two different carotenoid-cleaving enzymes were identified in mammals, the classical carotenoid-15,15' -oxygenase (CMO1) and a putative carotenoid-9',10'-oxygenase (CMO2). To analyze the role of CMO1 in mammalian physiology, here we disrupted the corresponding gene by targeted homologous recombination in mice. On a diet providing beta-carotene as major vitamin A precursor, vitamin A levels fell dramatically in several tissues examined. Instead, this mouse mutant accumulated the provitamin in large quantities ( e. g. as seen by an orange coloring of adipose tissues). Besides impairments in beta-carotene metabolism, CMO1 deficiency more generally interfered with lipid homeostasis. Even on a vitamin A-sufficient chow, CMO1(-/-) mice developed a fatty liver and displayed altered serum lipid levels with elevated serum unesterified fatty acids. Additionally, this mouse mutant was more susceptible to high fat diet-induced impairments in fatty acid metabolism. Quantitative reverse transcription-PCR analysis revealed that the expression of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma-regulated marker genes related to adipogenesis was elevated in visceral adipose tissues. Thus, our study identifies CMO1 as the key enzyme for vitamin A production and provides evidence for a role of carotenoids as more general regulators of lipid metabolism.

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