4.5 Article

Influence of age and caloric restriction on liver glycolytic enzyme activities and metabolite concentrations in mice

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 253-266

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0531-5565(02)00203-6

关键词

caloric restriction; glucose; glycolysis; glycolytic metabolites; glycolytic enzymes

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [P01 AG11915, R01 AG17902] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The influence of caloric restriction (CR) from 2 months of age on the activities of liver glycolytic enzymes and metabolite levels was studied in young and old mice. Livers were sampled 48 h after the last scheduled feeding time. Old mice on CR showed significant decreases in the activities of all the enzymes studied, except for aldolase, triosephosphate isomerase and phosphoglycerate mutase, which were unchanged. The metabolites glucose, glucose-6-phosphate, fructose-6-phosphate, pyruvate and lactate were lower while fructose-1,6-bisphosphate, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate, dihydroxyacetone phosphate, 3-phosphoglycerate and phosphoenolpyruvate were increased in old CR. Young mice on CR also showed reduced enzyme activities, except for aldolase, triosephosphate isomerase and enolase which were unchanged when compared with young controls. The metabolites glucose, glucose-6-phosphate, fructose-6-phosphate and pyruvate were decreased when compared with young controls, while phosphoenolpyruvate was increased. Ketone bodies increased (65%) in old, but not young, CR mice while fructose-2,6-bisphosphate decreased in both young (22%) and old CR (28%) mice. The results indicate that decreased hepatic glucose levels in CR mice are associated with decreased enzyme activities but not a uniform decrease in metabolite levels. Increased ketone body levels indicate increased utilization of non-carbohydrate fuels while decreased fructose- 2,6-bisphosphate level suggests its importance in the control of glycolysis in CR. (C) 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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