4.5 Article

Fructose transporters GLUT5 and GLUT2 expression in adult patients with fructose intolerance

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/2050640613505279

关键词

FODMAP; fructose intolerance; fructose transporters; GLUT5; GLUT2; irritable bowel syndrome; malabsorption; visceral pain

资金

  1. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems
  2. Direct For Biological Sciences [1121049] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Gastrointestinal symptoms and malabsorption following fructose ingestion (fructose intolerance) are common in functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID). The underlying mechanism is unclear, but is hypothesized to be related an abnormality of intestinal fructose transporter proteins. Objective: To assess the expression of the main intestinal fructose transporter proteins, glucose transport protein 5 (GLUT5) and 2 (GLUT2), in FGID. Methods: The expression of GLUT5 and GLUT2 protein and mRNA in small intestinal biopsy tissue was investigated using real-time reverse-transcription PCR and Western immunoblotting in 11 adults with FGID and fructose intolerance ascertained by breath testing and in 15 controls. Results: Median expression levels of GLUT5 mRNA normalized to beta-actin were 0.18 (interquartile range, IQR, 0.13-0.21) in patients and 0.17 (IQR 0.12-0.19) in controls (p > 0.05). Respective levels of GLUT2 mRNA were 0.26 (IQR 0.20-0.31) and 0.26 (IQR 0.19-0.31) (p > 0.05). Median expression levels of GLUT5 protein normalized to alpha-tubulin were 0.95 (IQR 0.52-1.68) in patients and 0.95 (IQR 0.59-1.15) in controls (p > 0.05). Respective protein expression levels for GLUT2 were 1.56 (IQR 1.06-2.14) and 1.35 (IQR 0.96-1.79) (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Human fructose intolerance may not be associated with marked changes in GLUT5 and GLUT2 expression. Replication of these results in a larger subject group, including measures of transporter activation and membrane and subcellular localization, is warranted.

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

4.5
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