4.6 Article

Tracking fatty acid kinetics in distinct lipoprotein fractions in vivo: a novel high-throughput approach for studying dyslipidemia in rodent models

期刊

JOURNAL OF LIPID RESEARCH
卷 54, 期 1, 页码 276-281

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1194/jlr.D030791

关键词

stable isotopes; mass spectrometry; kinetic biomarker; cardiovascular disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Isotopic tracers have been used to examine lipid trafficking for many years, and data from those studies have typically yielded novel insight regarding the pathophysiology of dyslipidemia. Previous experimental designs were suitable for studies in humans because relatively large volumes of plasma could be regularly sampled. We have expanded on the earlier logic by applying high-throughput analytical methods that require reduced sample volumes. Specifically, we have examined the possibility of coupling gel-based separations of lipoproteins (e.g., lipoprint) with LC-MS/MS analyses of complex lipid mixtures as a way to routinely measure the labeling profiles of distinct lipids in discrete lipoprotein subfractions. We demonstrate the ability to measure the incorporation of [U-C-13] oleate into triglycerides (TG), PLs (PL), and cholesterol esters (CE) in VLDL, LDL, and HDL particles in mice. Although rodent models of dyslipidemia are inherently different from humans because of alterations in enzyme activities and underlying metabolism, rodent models can be used to screen novel compounds for efficacy in altering a given biochemical pathway and therein enable studies of target engagement in vivo. We expect that it is possible to translate our approach for application in other systems, including studies in humans.-McLaren, D. G., S.-P. Wang, S. J. Stout, D. Xie, P. L. Miller, V. Mendoza, R. Rosa, J. Castro-Perez, S. F. Previs, D. G. Johns, and T. P. Roddy. Tracking fatty acid kinetics in distinct lipoprotein fractions in vivo: a novel high-throughput approach for studying dyslipidemia in rodent models. J. Lipid Res. 2013. 54: 276-281.

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