4.7 Article

Mitochondrial tissue specificity of substrates utilization in rat cardiac and skeletal muscles

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY
卷 203, 期 3, 页码 479-486

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jcp.20245

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As energetic metabolism is crucial for muscles, they develop different adaptations to respond to fluctuating demand among muscle types. Whereas quantitative characteristics are known, no study described simultaneously quantitative and qualitative differences among muscle types in terms of substrates utilization patterns. This study thus defined the pattern Of Substrates preferential Utilization by mitochondria from glycolytic gastrocnemius (GAS) and oxidative soleus (SOL) skeletal Muscles and from heart left ventrical (LV) in rats. We measured in Situ, ADP (2 mM)-stimulated, mitochondrial respiration rates from skinned fibers in presence of increasing concentrations of pyruvate (Pyr) + malate (Mal), palmitoyl-carnitine (Palm-C) + Mal, glutamate (Glut) + Mal, glycerol-3-phosphate (G3-P), lactate (Lact) + Mal. Because the fibers oxygen uptake (V-s) followed Michaelis-Menten kinetics in function Of Substrates level we determined the V-s and K-m representing maximal oxidative capacity and the mitochondrial sensibility for each substrate, respectively. Vs were in the order GAS < SOL < LV for Pyr, Glu, and Palm-C substrates, whereas in the order SOL = LV < GAS with G3-P. Moreover, the relative capacity to oxidize Palm-C is extremely higher in LV than in SOL. V, was not stimulated by the Lact substrate. The K-m was equal for Pyr among muscles, but much lower for G3-P in GAS and lower for Palm-C in LV. These results demonstrate qualitative mitochondrial tissue specificity for metabolic pathways. Mitochondria of glycolytic muscle fibers are well adapted to play a central role for maintaining a satisfactory cytosolic redox state in these fibers, whereas mitochondria of LV developed important capacities to use fatty acids. (c) 2004 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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