4.7 Article

Lipid droplet dynamics and insulin sensitivity upon a 5-day high-fat diet in Caucasians and South Asians

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 7, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/srep42393

关键词

-

资金

  1. NanoNextNL, a micro and nanotechnology consortium of the Government of the Netherlands and 130 partners
  2. Netherlands Cardiovascular Research Initiative: an initiative
  3. Dutch Heart Foundation [CVON2014-02 ENERGISE]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 5-day High-Fat High-Calorie diet (HFHC-diet) reduces insulin-stimulated glucose disposal (Rd) in South Asian, but not Caucasian healthy lean males. We aimed to investigate if differences in myocellular lipid handling are underlying this differential response. A two-step hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp and muscle biopsies were performed in 12 healthy lean Caucasian and South Asian males (BMI < 25 kg/m(2), 19-25 years) before and after a 5-day HFHC-diet (regular diet + 375 mL cream/day; 1275 kcal/day; 94% fat). Triglyceride extractions and Western Blots for lipid droplet and mitochondrial proteins were performed. Intramyocellular lipid content and HFHC-diet response were similar between ethnicities (group effect: P = 0.094; diet effect: +similar to 30%, P = 0.044). PLIN5 protein content increased upon the HFHC-diet (P = 0.031) and tended to be higher in South Asians (0.87 +/- 0.42 AU vs. 1.35 +/- 0.58 AU, P = 0.07). 4-HNE tended to increase in South Asians upon the HFHC-diet (interaction effect: P = 0.057). In Caucasians Delta PLIN5 content correlated with Delta R-d (Caucasians: r = 0.756, P = 0.011; South Asians: r = -0.085, P = 0.816), while in South Asians Delta 4-HNE associated with Delta PLIN5 content (Caucasians: r = 0.312, P = 0.380; South Asians: r = 0.771, P = 0.003). These data indicate that in Caucasians, PLIN5 may be protective against HFHC-diet induced insulin resistance, which for reasons not yet understood is not observed in South Asians, who possess increased lipid peroxidation levels.

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