4.6 Article

Severe hypertriglyceridemia in human APOC1 transgenic mice is caused by apoC-I-induced inhibition of LPL

期刊

JOURNAL OF LIPID RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 2, 页码 297-306

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1194/jlr.M400301-JLR200

关键词

fatty acids; lipid metabolism; triglycerides; apolipoprotein C-I; very low density lipoprotein; lipoprotein lipase

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies in humans and mice have shown that increased expression of apolipoprotein C-I (apoC-I) results in combined hyperlipidemia with a more pronounced effect on triglycerides (TGs) compared with total cholesterol (TC). The aim of this study was to elucidate the main reason for this effect using human apoC-l-expressing (APOC1) mice. Moderate plasma human apoG-I levels (i.e., 4-fold higher than human levels) caused a 12-fold increase in TG, along with a 2-fold increase in TC, mainly confined to VLDL. Crossbreeding of APOC1 mice on an apoE-deficient background resulted in a marked 55-fold increase in TG, confirming that the apoC-I-induced hyperlipidemia cannot merely be attributed to blockade of apoE-recognizing hepatic lipoprotein receptors. The plasma half-life of [H-3]TG-VLDI-mimicking particles was 2-fold increased in APOC1 mice, suggesting that apoC-I reduces the lipolytic conversion of VLDL. Although total postheparin plasma LPL activity was not lower in APOC1 mice compared with controls, apoG-I was able to dose-dependently inhibit the LPI-mediated lipolysis of [3H]TG-VLDL-mimicking particles in vitro with a 60% efficiency compared with the main endogenous LPL inhibitor apoC-III. Finally, purified apoC-I impaired the clearance of [3H]TG-VLDL-mimicking particles independent of apoE-mediated hepatic uptake in lactoferrin-treated rnice.jlr Therefore, we conclude that apoC-I is a potent inhibitor of LPL-mediated TG-lipolysis.-Berbee. F. P., C. C. van der Hoogt, D. Sundararaman, L. M. Havekes, and P. C. N. Rensen. Severe hypertriglyceridemia in human APOCI transgenic mice is caused by apoC-I-induced inhibition of LPL.

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