4.7 Article

Ca2+ and AMPK both mediate stimulation of glucose transport by muscle contractions

期刊

DIABETES
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 330-335

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diabetes.53.2.330

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK-18986] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is now generally accepted that activation of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) is involved in the stimulation of glucose transport by muscle contractions. However, earlier studies provided evidence that increases in cytosolic Ca2+ mediate the effect of muscle contractions on glucose transport. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that both the increase in cytosolic Ca2+ and the activation of AMPK are involved in the stimulation of glucose transport by muscle contractions. Caffeine causes release of Ca2+ from the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Incubation of rat epitrochlearis muscles with a concentration of caffeine that raises cytosolic Ca2+ to levels too low to cause contraction resulted in an approximate threefold increase in glucose transport. Caffeine treatment also resulted in increased phosphorylation of calmodulin-dependent protein kinase (CAMK)-II in epitrochlearis muscle. The stimulation of glucose transport by caffeine was blocked by the Ca2+-CAMK inhibitors KN62 and KN93. Activation of AMPK with 5-aminoimidizole-4-carboxamide ribonucleoside (AICAR) also resulted in an approximate threefold increase in glucose transport in the epitrochlearis. The increases in glucose transport induced by AICAR and caffeine were additive, and their combined effect was not significantly different from that induced by maximally effective contractile activity. KN62 and KN93 caused an similar to50% inhibition of the stimulation of glucose transport by contractile activity. Our results provide evidence that both Ca2+ and AMPK are involved in the stimulation of glucose transport by muscle con tractions. They also suggest that the stimulation of glucose transport by Ca2+ involves activation of CAMK.

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