Journal of Nutrition EB Program 2010

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Purchase Article
Right arrow View Shopping Cart
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dupont, J.
Right arrow Articles by Taouis, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dupont, J.
Right arrow Articles by Taouis, M.
(Journal of Nutrition. 1999;129:1937-1944.)
© 1999 The American Society for Nutritional Sciences


Article

Metabolic Differences between Genetically Lean and Fat Chickens Are Partly Attributed to the Alteration of Insulin Signaling in Liver1

Joëlle Dupont, Jinwen Chen, Michel Derouet, Jean Simon, Bernard Leclercq and Mohammed Taouis2

Endocrinologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire du Métabolisme, Station de Recherches Avicoles, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, 37380 Nouzilly, France

2To whom correspondence should be addressed.

Insulin signaling [tyrosine phosphorylation of insulin receptor (IR), insulin receptor substrate-1 (IRS-1), Src homology and collagen protein (Shc) and phosphatidyl inositol 3'-kinase activity (PI 3'-kinase)] was studied in the liver and thigh muscles of fat (FL) and lean (LL) chickens. These lines result from a divergent selection on abdominal fat pad size. The divergence is of metabolic origin. Extreme nutritional states were studied (fed, 48-h starved and 30-min refed). Such conditions significantly altered insulin signaling in chicken liver, but surprisingly not in the muscle (except the phosphorylation of Shc in the refed state). No major differences that could account for this divergence were found in muscle. Liver IR number and Shc protein did not differ between genotypes. Liver IRS-1 (protein and messenger) was lower in the fed state and higher in the starved state in FL compared to that in LL chickens. In the fed state, tyrosine phosphorylation of liver IR, IRS-1 and Shc action was higher in FL than in LL chickens that in the absence of insulin resistance rely on higher plasma insulin levels. In the starved state, phosphorylation of liver IR was lower, but the phosphorylation of IR and IRS-1 were higher in LL than in FL chickens, most likely in response to higher plasma glucose and insulin in the lean genotype. In the refed state, the phosphorylation of liver IR and IRS-1 did not differ between genotypes despite significantly lower plasma insulin in FL chickens. Finally, PI 3'-kinase was not affected by the genotype. A significant activation of early steps of insulin signaling in liver of fed FL chickens may at least partly account for their increased liver lipogenesis and ultimately their fattening.


KEY WORDS: • insulin receptor • insulin receptor substrates • tyrosine phosphorylation • chickens • signal transduction • obesity • insulin




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Am. J. Physiol. Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol.Home page
M. S. Byerly, J. Simon, E. Lebihan-Duval, M. J. Duclos, L. A. Cogburn, and T. E. Porter
Effects of BDNF, T3, and corticosterone on expression of the hypothalamic obesity gene network in vivo and in vitro
Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, April 1, 2009; 296(4): R1180 - R1189.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
J EndocrinolHome page
J. Dupont, S. Tesseraud, M. Derouet, A. Collin, N. Rideau, S. Crochet, E. Godet, E. Cailleau-Audouin, S. Metayer-Coustard, M. J Duclos, et al.
Insulin immuno-neutralization in chicken: effects on insulin signaling and gene expression in liver and muscle
J. Endocrinol., June 1, 2008; 197(3): 531 - 542.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] [Contents]
Copyright © 1999 by American Society for Nutrition