4.6 Article

Analysis of metabolites in plasma reveals distinct metabolic features between Dahl salt-sensitive rats and consomic SS.13BN rats

期刊

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.06.089

关键词

Hypertension; Metabolomics; Mass spectrometry; TCA cycle; Dahl salt-sensitive rats

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [31071029, 81270767, 81228002]
  2. US National Institutes of Health [HL116264]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Salt-sensitive hypertension is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disorders. Our previous proteomic study revealed substantial differences in several proteins between Dahl salt-sensitive (SS) rats and salt-insensitive consomic SS.13(BN) rats. Subsequent experiments indicated a role of fumarase insufficiency in the development of hypertension in SS rats. In the present study, a global metabolic profiling study was performed using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) in plasma of SS rats (n = 9) and SS.13(BN) rats (n = 8) on 0.4% NaCl diet, designed to gain further insights into the relationship between alterations in cellular intermediary metabolism and predisposition to hypertension. Principal component analysis of the data sets revealed a clear clustering and separation of metabolic profiles between SS rats and SS.13(BN) rats. 23 differential metabolites were identified (P < 0.05). Higher levels of five TCA cycle metabolites, fumarate, cis-aconitate, isocitrate, citrate and succinate, were observed in SS rats. Pyruvate, which connects TCA cycle and glycolysis, was also increased in SS rats. Moreover, lower activity levels of fumarase, aconitase, alpha-ketoglutarate dehydrogenase and succinyl-CoA synthetase were detected in the heart, liver or skeletal muscles of SS rats. The distinct metabolic features in SS and SS.13(BN) rats indicate abnormalities of TCA cycle in SS rats, which may play a role in predisposing SS rats to developing salt-sensitive hypertension. (C) 2014 Elsevier 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

4.6
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