4.4 Review

Regulation of hepatic glucose production and the role of gluconeogenesis in humans: is the rate of gluconeogenesis constant?

期刊

DIABETES-METABOLISM RESEARCH AND REVIEWS
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 438-458

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/dmrr.863

关键词

glycogenolysis; hepatic glucose output; methodology; isotope dilution; mass isotopomer distribution analysis (MIDA); nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy

资金

  1. Department of Veterans Affairs

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We have been interested in the metabolic effects of ingested fuels, both in normal subjects and in people with type 2 diabetes. Recently, we have become interested in the regulation of glucose production and the regulation of gluconeogenesis in particular. We are not aware of a recent comprehensive review of these topics. Therefore, we have reviewed the currently available literature. The pertinent papers obtained from a Medline search of the words gluconeogenesis, glycogenolysis, hepatic glucose output, as well as papers from Our personal files, form the basis of this review. In order to analyse the data, it also was necessary to review the relevant methodology used in determining gluconeogenesis. Pathway diagrams have been included with this review in order to illustrate and highlight key aspects of the methodologies. Current data support the hypothesis that the race of glucose appearance changes but the rate Of gluconeogenesis remains remarkably stable in widely varying metabolic conditions in people without diabetes. In people with diabetes, whether gluconeogenesis remains unchanged is at present uncertain. Available data are very limited. The mechanism by which gluconeogenesis remains relatively constant, even in the setting of excess substrates, is not known. One interesting speculation is that gluconeogenic substrates substitute for each other depending on availability. Thus, the overall rate is either unaffected or only modestly changed. This requires further confirmation. Published in 2008 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.4
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