4.7 Review

Restriction of energy intake, energy expenditure, and aging

期刊

FREE RADICAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE
卷 29, 期 10, 页码 946-968

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0891-5849(00)00417-2

关键词

caloric restriction; longevity; oxygen consumption; reactive oxygen species; free radicals; mitochondria

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R03AG17696, P01AG11915] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Energy restriction (ER), without malnutrition, increases maximum life span and retards the development of a broad array of pathophysiological changes in laboratory rodents. The mechanism responsible for the retardation of aging by ER is, however, unknown. One proposed explanation is a reduction in energy expenditure (EE). Reduced EE may increase life span by decreasing the number of oxygen molecules interacting with mitochondria, thereby lowering reactive oxygen species (ROS) production. As a step toward testing this hypothesis, it is important to determine the effect of ER on EE. Several whole-body, organ, and cellular studies have measured the influence of ER on EE. In general, whole-body studies have reported an acute decrease in mass-adjusted EE that disappears with long-term ER. Organ-specific studies have shown that decreases in EE of liver and gastrointestinal tract are primarily responsible for initial reductions in EE with ER. These data, however, do not determine whether cellular EE is altered with ER. Three major processes contributing to resting EE at the cellular level are mitochondrial proton leak, Na+-K+-ATPase activity, and protein turnover. Studies suggest that proton leak and Na+-K+-ATPase activity are decreased with ER, whereas protein turnover is either unchanged or slightly increased with ER. Thus, two of the three major processes contributing to resting EE at the cellular level may be decreased with ER. Although additional cellular measurements are needed, the current results suggest that a lowering of EE could be a mechanism for the action of ER. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Inc.

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