4.7 Article

Role of skeletal muscle Na+-K+ ATPase activity in increased lactate production in sub-acute sepsis

期刊

LIFE SCIENCES
卷 70, 期 16, 页码 1875-1888

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0024-3205(02)01475-3

关键词

bacterial sepsis; glycolysis; Na+-K+ ATPase; skeletal muscle; hypoxia

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [GM 54775] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacterial sepsis is frequently accompanied by increased blood concentration of lactic acid, which traditionally is attributed to poor tissue perfusion, hypoxia and anaerobic glycolysis. Therapy aimed at improving oxygen delivery to tissues often does not correct the hyperlactatemia, suggesting that high blood lactate in sepsis is not due to hypoxia. Various tissues, including skeletal muscle, demonstrate increased lactate production under well-oxygenated conditions when the activity of the Na+-K+ ATPase is stimulated. Although both muscle Nay -K+ ATPase activity and muscle plasma membrane content of Na+, K+-ATPase subunits are increased in sepsis, no studies in vivo have demonstrated correlation between lactate production and changes in intracellular Na+ and K+ resulting from increased Na+ -K+ pump activity in sepsis. Plasma concentrations of lactate and epinephrine, a known stimulator of the Na+-K+ pump, were increased in rats made septic by E. coli injection. Muscle lactate content was significantly increased in septic rats, although muscle ATP and phosphocreatine remained normal, suggesting oxygen delivery remained adequate for mitochondrial energy metabolism. In septic rats, muscle intracellular ratio of Na+:K+ was significantly reduced, indicating increased Na+-K+ pump activity. These data thus demonstrate that increased muscle lactate dining sepsis correlates with evidence of elevated muscle Na+-K+ ATPase activity, but not with evidence of impaired oxidative metabolism. This study also further supports a role for epinephrine in this process. (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

4.7
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