4.6 Article

Reduced mitochondrial coupling in vivo alters cellular energetics in aged mouse skeletal muscle

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
卷 569, 期 2, 页码 467-473

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2005.097782

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR-36281, R01 AR036281] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIA NIH HHS [AG-00057, T32 AG000057, R01 AG028455, AG-22385, K01 AG022385] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mitochondrial theory of ageing proposes that the accumulation of oxidative damage to mitochondria leads to mitochondrial dysfunction and tissue degeneration with age. However, no consensus has emerged regarding the effects of ageing on mitochondrial function, particularly for mitochondrial coupling (P/O). One of the main barriers to a better understanding of the effects of ageing on coupling has been the lack of in vivo approaches to measure P/O. We use optical and magnetic resonance spectroscopy to independently quantify mitochondrial ATP synthesis and O-2 uptake to determine in vivo P/O. Resting ATP demand (equal to ATP synthesis) was lower in the skeletal muscle of 30-month-old C57Bl/6 mice compared to 7-month-old controls (21.9 +/- 1.5 versus 13.6 +/- 1.7 nmol ATP (g tissue)(-1) s(-1), P = 0.01). In contrast, there was no difference in the resting rates of O-2 uptake between the groups (5.4 +/- 0.6 versus 8.4 +/- 1.6 nmol O-2 (g tissue)(-1) s(-1)). These results indicate a nearly 50% reduction in the mitochondrial P/O in the aged animals (2.05 +/- 0.07 versus 1.05 +/- 0.36, P = 0.02). The higher resting ADP (30.8 +/- 6.8 versus 58.0 +/- 9.5 mu mol g(-1), P = 0.05) and decreased energy charge (ATP/ADP) (274 +/- 70 versus 84 +/- 16, P = 0.03) in the aged mice is consistent with an impairment of oxidative ATP synthesis. Despite the reduced P/O, uncoupling protein 3 protein levels were not different in the muscles of the two groups. These results demonstrate reduced mitochondrial coupling in aged skeletal muscle that alters cellular metabolism and energetics.

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