Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:38:33.372Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The adaptation in musle oxidation of leucine to dietary protein and energy intake

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2007

R. D. Sketcher ,
E. B. Fern  and
W. P. T. James
R. D. Sketcher
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism Unit, Department of Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT
E. B. Fern
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism Unit, Department of Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT
W. P. T. James
Affiliation:
Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism Unit, Department of Human Nutrition, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Female hooded rats (65g) were maintained on a high-protein (HP) or low-protein (LP) diet for 2 weeks (ratio, energy supplied by utilizable protein: total metabolizable energy 10 and 3.5 respectively) and the oxidation of both L- and DL-[1-14C]leucine in vivo was measured in the fed and fasted animal.

2. Oxidation of leucine in vivo was reduced in the animals given the LP diet. Fasting caused an increase in the oxidation of the branched-chain amino acids.

3. Leucine-α-oxoglutarate transaminase (EC 2.6.1.6) and α-ketoisocaproic acid dehydrogenase were measured in both liver and gastrocnemius muscle from rats fed on the HP or LP diet. Enzymes were also assayed after a 48 h fast in a group of animals previously maintained on the HP diet.

4. The LP diet led to a fall in muscle dehydrogenase activity without any alterations in liver enzyme activity. Fasting also reduced muscle dehydrogenase activity but increased liver dehydrogenase activity.

5. The presence of a dehydrogenase in muscle and its ability to adapt to dietary stress at a time when the liver enzyme is unaffected suggests that muscle is the most important site for control of leucine oxidation.

6. Transaminase activity in muscle rose in the LP and fasted animals but the activity in liver was unchanged.

7. Oxidation, incorporation into protein of [U-14C]leucine and the pool sizes of free leucine in plasma and in the extensor digitorum longus muscles were measured. The rats were maintained under the feeding conditions described above. The ability of incubated muscles to incorporate [14C]leucine into protein in both the fasted animals and those fed on the LP diet was reduced. Oxidation of leucine in muscle was reduced in protein deficiency but there was little change in the evolution of 14CO2 from [U-14C]leucine on fasting.

8. The increase in pool size of free leucine in fasted animals is probably important in determining its rate of oxidation in muscle, as 14CO2 production was maintained despite falling activities of the dehydrogenase enzyme activity. The muscle enzyme accounted for 90% of the calculated body capacity for oxidation; activity in liver is insufficient to deal with normal rates of oxidation. Muscle enzyme is normally in excess of that required for the oxidation of branched-chain amino acids.

Type
General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 31 , Issue 3 , May 1974 , pp. 333 - 342
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1974

References

REFERENCES

Felig, P. & Wahren, J. (1971). J. clin. Invest. 50, 2703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garlick, P. J. (1969). Nuture, Lond. 223, 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldbcrg, A. L. (1972). In Muscle Biology Vol. 1, p. 98 [Cassens, R. G., editor]. New York: M. Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. L. & Odessey, R. (1972). Am. J. Physiol. 223, 1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ham, A. W. (1957). Histology p. 338. London: Pitman Medical.Google Scholar
Hider, R. C., Fern, E. B. & London, D. R. (1971). Biochem. J. 121, 817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedenburg, C. P. (1971). Analyt. Biochem. 40, 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krebs, H. A. (1972). In Advances in Enzyme Regulation Vol. 10, p. 387 [Weber, G., editor]. New York: M. Dekker Inc.Google Scholar
Lowry, O. H., Rosebrough, N. J., Farr, A. L. & Randall, R. J. (1951). J. biol. Chem. 193, 265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loftfield, R. B. & Harris, A. (1956). J. biol. Chem. 219, 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, I. G. & Von Holt, C. (1969 a). Biochem.J. 111, 557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarlane, I. G. & Von Holt, C. (1969 b). Biochem. J. 111, 565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meikle, A. W. & Klain, G. J. (1972). Am. J. Physiol. 222, 1246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, L. L. (1962). In Amino Acid Pools p. 708 [Holden, J. T., editor]. Arnsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Millward, D. J. (1970). Clin. Sci. 39, 591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munro, H. N. & Fleck, A. (1969). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism Vol. 2, p. 424 [Munro, H. K., editor]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Neale, R. J. (1971). Nature New Biol. 231, 117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, R. J. (1972). Biochim. biophys. Acta 273, 80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Odessey, R. & Goldberg, A. L. (1972). Am. J. Physiol. 223, 1376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pain, V. M. & Manchester, K. L. (1970). Biochem. J. 118, 209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Payne, P. R. & Stewart, R. J. C. (1972). Lab. Anim. 6, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pozefsky, T., Felig, P., Jordan, D. T., Soeldner, J. S. & Cahill, F. G. Jr (1969). J. clin. Invest. 48, 2273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanaka, K., Isselbacher, K. J. & Shih, V. (1972). Science, N.Y. 175, 69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Umbreit, W. W., Burris, R. H. & Stauffer, J. K. (editors) (1959). Manometric Methods p. 149. Minneapolis: Burgess Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Waterlow, J. C. & Stephen, J. M. L. (1968). Clin. Sci. 35, 287.Google Scholar
Wolhueter, R. M. & Harper, A. E. (1970). J. biol. Chem. 245, 2391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, V. R. (1970). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism Vol. 4, p. 612 [Munro, H. N., editor]. New York and London: Academic Press.Google Scholar