High-density lipoprotein apolipoprotein A-I kinetics in obese insulin resistant patients. An in vivo stable isotope study

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Mechanisms responsible for the decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level associated with insulin resistance in obese patients are not clearly understood. To determine the influence of insulin resistance at an early stage on HDL metabolism, we performed a stable isot...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:International Journal of Obesity 2002-09, Vol.26 (9), p.1151-1158
Main Authors: Pont, F, Duvillard, L, Florentin, E, Gambert, P, Vergès, B
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis. Health state
apolipoprotein A-I
Apolipoproteins
Atherosclerosis
Biological and medical sciences
Cholesterol
Epidemiology
fasting
General aspects
Glucose
glucose tolerance
High density lipoprotein
Insulin resistance
Isotope studies
Isotopes
Kinetics
leucine
Lipids
Lipoproteins
Medical sciences
Metabolic diseases
Metabolism
Obesity
patients
Plasma
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
risk
Stable isotopes
triacylglycerols
Triglycerides
women
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Mechanisms responsible for the decreased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level associated with insulin resistance in obese patients are not clearly understood. To determine the influence of insulin resistance at an early stage on HDL metabolism, we performed a stable isotope kinetic study of apolipoprotein (apo) A-I, in five obese insulin resistant women with normal fasting triglycerides and without impaired glucose tolerance, and in five age-matched control women. METHODS: Each subject received a 16 h constant infusion of L-[1-13C]leucine at 0.7 mg/kg/h following a primed bolus of 0.7 mg/kg. RESULTS: ApoA-I fractional catabolic rate (FCR) was significantly increased in insulin-resistant women compared to controls (0.316±0.056 vs 0.210±0.040 per day, P
ISSN:0307-0565
1476-5497
DOI:10.1038/sj.ijo.0802070