4.6 Article

Ontogeny of mRNA expression and activity of long-chain acyl-CoA synthetase (ACSL) isoforms in Mus musculus heart

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbalip.2006.11.007

关键词

fatty acid activation; heart ontogeny; heart fatty acid oxidation; heart lipid synthesis; heart phospholipid composition

资金

  1. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [K01DK059931, R01DK059935, P30DK056350] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  2. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK56350, R01 DK059935, K01 DK059931, DK59931, DK59935, P30 DK056350] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Long-chain acyl-CoA synthetases (ACSL) activate fatty acids (FA) and provide substrates for virtually every metabolic pathway that catabolizes FA or synthesizes complex lipids. We have hypothesized that each of the five cloned ACSL isoforms partitions FA towards specific downstream pathways. Adult heart expresses all five cloned ACSL isoforms, but their independent functional roles have not been elucidated. Studies implicate ACSL1 in both oxidative and lipid synthetic pathways. To clarify the functional role of ACSL1 and the other ACSL isoforms (3-6), we examined ACS specific activity and Acsl mRNA expression in the developing mouse heart which increases FA oxidative pathways for energy production after birth. Compared to the embryonic heart, ACS specific activity was 14-fold higher on post-natal day 1 (P1). On P1, as compared to the fetus, only Acsl1 mRNA increased, whereas transcripts for the other Acsl isoforms remained the same, suggesting that ACSL1 is the major isoform responsible for activating long-chain FA for myocardial oxidation after birth. In contrast, the mRNA abundance of Acsl3 was highest on E16, and decreased dramatically by P7, suggesting that ACSL3 may play a critical role during the development of the fetal heart. Our data support the hypothesis that each ACSL has a specific role in the channeling of FA towards distinct metabolic fates. (c) 2006 Elsevier B.V. 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