4.7 Article

Effect of short-term fasting and refeeding on transcriptional regulation of metabolic genes in human skeletal muscle

期刊

DIABETES
卷 52, 期 3, 页码 657-662

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diabetes.52.3.657

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIAMS NIH HHS [AR 45372] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

During short-term fasting, substrate utilization in skeletal muscle shifts from predominantly carbohydrate to fat as a means of conserving glucose. To examine the potential influence of short-term fasting and refeeding on transcriptional regulation in skeletal muscle, muscle biopsies were obtained from nine male subjects at rest, after 20 h of fasting, and 1 h after consuming either a high-carbohydrate (CHO trial) or a low-carbohydrate (FAT trial) meal. Fasting induced an increase in transcription of the pyruvate dehydrogenase kinase 4 (PDK4) (10-fold), lipoprotein lipase (LPL) (similar to2-fold), uncoupling protein 3 (UCP3) (similar to5-fold), and carnitine palmitoyltransferase I (CPT I) (similar to2.5-fold) genes. Surprisingly, transcription of PDK4 and LPL increased further in response to refeeding (both trials) to more than 50-fold and 6- to 10-fold, respectively, over prefasting levels. However, responses varied among subjects with two subjects in particular displaying far greater activation of PDK4 (>100-fold) and LPL (>20-fold) than the other subjects (mean similar to8-fold and similar to2-fold, respectively). Transcription of UCP3 decreased to basal levels after the CHO meal but remained elevated after the FAT meal, whereas CPT I remained elevated after both refeeding meals. The present findings demonstrate that short-term fasting/refeeding in humans alters the transcription of several genes in skeletal muscle related to lipid metabolism. Marked heterogeneity in the transcriptional response to the fasting/refeeding protocol suggests that individual differences in genetic profile may play an important role in adaptive molecular responses to metabolic challenges.

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