4.7 Article

Intrinsic gluconeogenesis is enhanced in renal proximal tubules of Zucker diabetic fatty rats

期刊

出版社

AMER SOC NEPHROLOGY
DOI: 10.1681/ASN.2005070742

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies indicate that renal gluconeogenesis is substantially stimulated in patients with type 2 diabetes, but the mechanism that is responsible for such stimulation remains unknown. Therefore, this study tested the hypothesis that renal gluconeogenesis is intrinsically elevated in the Zucker diabetic fatty rat, which is considered to be an excellent model of type 2 diabetes. For this, isolated renal proximal tubules from diabetic rats and from their lean nondiabetic littermates were incubated in the presence of physiologic gluconeogenic precursors. Although there was no increase in substrate removal and despite a reduced cellular ATP level, a marked stimulation of gluconeogenesis was observed in diabetic relative to nondiabetic rats, with near-physiologic concentrations of lactate (38%), glutamine (51%) and glycerol (66%). This stimulation was caused by a change in the fate of the substrate carbon skeletons resulting from an increase in the activities and mRNA levels of the key gluconeogenic enzymes that are common to lactate, glutamine, and glycerol metabolism, i.e., mainly of phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase and, to a lesser extent, of glucose-6-phosphatase and fructose-1,6-bisphosphatase. Experimental evidence suggests that glucocorticoids and cAMP were two factors that were responsible for the long-term stimulation of renal gluconeogenesis observed in the diabetic rats. These data provide the first demonstration in an animal model that renal gluconeogenesis is upregulated by a long-term mechanism during type 2 diabetes. Together with the increased renal mass (38%) observed, they lend support to the view so far based only on in vivo studies performed in humans that renal gluconeogenesis may be stimulated by and crucially contribute to the hyperglycemia of 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