4.6 Article

Circadian rhythms in myocardial metabolism and contractile function: influence of workload and oleate

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpheart.01361.2006

关键词

fatty acids; glucose; glycogen; triglyceride

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL-075747, HL-074259] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Multiple extracardiac stimuli, such as workload and circulating nutrients (e. g., fatty acids), known to influence myocardial metabolism and contractile function exhibit marked circadian rhythms. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether the rat heart exhibits circadian rhythms in its responsiveness to changes in workload and/or fatty acid (oleate) availability. Thus, hearts were isolated from male Wistar rats (housed during a 12: 12-h light-dark cycle: lights on at 9 AM) at 9 AM, 3 PM, 9 PM, and 3 AM and perfused in the working mode ex vivo with 5 mM glucose plus either 0.4 or 0.8 mM oleate. Following 20- min perfusion at normal workload (i.e., 100 cm H2O afterload), hearts were challenged with increased workload (140 cm H2O afterload plus 1 mu M epinephrine). In the presence of 0.4 mM oleate, myocardial metabolism exhibited a marked circadian rhythm, with decreased rates of glucose oxidation, increased rates of lactate release, decreased glycogenolysis capacity, and increased channeling of oleate into nonoxidative pathways during the light phase. Rat hearts also exhibited a modest circadian rhythm in responsiveness to the workload challenge when perfused in the presence of 0.4 mM oleate, with increased myocardial oxygen consumption at the dark-to-light phase transition. However, rat hearts perfused in the presence of 0.8 mM oleate exhibited a markedly blunted contractile function response to the workload challenge during the light phase. In conclusion, these studies expose marked circadian rhythmicities in myocardial oxidative and nonoxidative metabolism as well as responsiveness of the rat heart to changes in workload and fatty acid availability.

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