4.7 Article

Assessment of usnic acid toxicity in rat primary hepatocytes using 13C isotopomer distribution analysis of lactate, glutamate and glucose

期刊

FOOD AND CHEMICAL TOXICOLOGY
卷 49, 期 11, 页码 2968-2974

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.fct.2011.07.047

关键词

Usnic acid; Hepatotoxicity; U-C-13(6)-D-glucose; Mass isotopomer distribution analysis (MIDA)

资金

  1. FDA Commissioner's Office
  2. National Center for Toxicological Research
  3. NCTR/USFDA [IAG 224-07-007 NCTR/NTP]
  4. National Toxicology Program [IAG 224-07-007 NCTR/NTP]
  5. National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The lichen metabolite usnic acid (UA) has been promoted as a dietary supplement for weight loss, although cases of hepatotoxicity have been reported. Here we evaluated UA-associated hepatotoxicity in vitro using isolated rat hepatocytes. We measured cell viability and ATP content to evaluate UA induced cytotoxicity and applied C-13 isotopomer distribution measuring techniques to gain a better understanding of glucose metabolism during cytotoxicity. The cells were exposed to 0, 1, 5 or 10 mu M UA concentrations for 2,6 or 24 h. Aliquots of media were collected at the end of these time periods and the C-13 mass isotopomer distribution determined for CO2, lactate, glucose and glutamate. The 1 mu M UA exposure did not appear to cause significant change in cell viability compared to controls. However, the 5 and 10 mu M UA concentrations significantly reduced cell viability as exposure time increased. Similar results were obtained for ATP depletion experiments. The 1 and 5 mu M UA doses suggest increased oxidative phosphorylation. Conversely, oxidative phosphorylation and gluconeogenesis were dramatically inhibited by 10 mu M UA. Augmented oxidative phosphorylation at the lower UA concentrations may be an adaptive response by the cells to compensate for diminished mitochondrial function. Published by Elsevier 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

4.7
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