| Literature DB >> 22929619 |
Anja Karlstädt1, Daniela Fliegner, Georgios Kararigas, Hugo Sanchez Ruderisch, Vera Regitz-Zagrosek, Hermann-Georg Holzhütter.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Availability of oxygen and nutrients in the coronary circulation is a crucial determinant of cardiac performance. Nutrient composition of coronary blood may significantly vary in specific physiological and pathological conditions, for example, administration of special diets, long-term starvation, physical exercise or diabetes. Quantitative analysis of cardiac metabolism from a systems biology perspective may help to a better understanding of the relationship between nutrient supply and efficiency of metabolic processes required for an adequate cardiac output.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22929619 PMCID: PMC3568067 DOI: 10.1186/1752-0509-6-114
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Syst Biol ISSN: 1752-0509
Overview of the metabolic network of human cardiomyocyte
| 6 | 1793 | 560 | 728 | 363 | 2565 |
Metabolic and physiological functions tested for the metabolic network
| | | | ||
| | ∙ Monosaccharides | Glucose and fructose metabolism | Energy production | [ |
| | | Glycogen formation | short-term energy storage | [ |
| | | Ribose | Energy production | [ |
| | | | Formation of ribonucleotides | |
| Degradation of ketone bodies | Energy production during fasting | [ | ||
| | | | and diabetes | |
| | | | ||
| | ∙ Cholesterol | De novo synthesis (cytosol, peroxisome) | Membrane synthesis | [ |
| | ∙ Fatty acids | Formation of (semi)-essential fatty acids | Membrane synthesis | [ |
| | | Energy production | [ | |
| | ∙ Triacylglycerides | De novo synthesis/ degradation of Mono-, | Membrane synthesis | [ |
| | | Di- and Triacylglycerides | | |
| | ∙ Phospholipids | De novo synthesis/ degradation of: | Membrane formation | [ |
| | | ∘ Phosphatidylserines | | |
| | | ∘ Phosphatidylcholines | | |
| | | ∘ Lysophosphatidylcholines | | |
| | | ∘ Phosphatidylethanolamines | | |
| | | ∘ Phosphatidylinositol | | |
| | | ∘ Sphingomyelin | | |
| | | ∘ Cardiolipin | | |
| | ∙ Sphingolipids | Ceramides | Membrane formation, apoptosis | [ |
| | | | ||
| | ∙ Amino acids | Formation of (non)-essential amino acids | Precursors of cellular proteins, nucleic acids, | [ |
| | | | glutathione and thioredoxin | |
| | | Degradation of (non)-essential amino acids | Amino acid homoeostasis, | [ |
| | | | anaplerotic reactions of TCA cycle | |
| | | Glutamine formation | Ammonia detoxification, Protein | [ |
| | | | de novo synthesis | |
| | | De novo synthesis of L-Carnitine | Transport of fatty acids from cytosol into | [ |
| | | | mitochondria during | |
| | ∙ Tripeptide | De novo synthesis of Glutathione | Prevention of cellular damage due to ROS | [ |
| | ∙ Polyamines | Formation/ degradation of Prutescine and Spermidine | Cell growth and division | [ |
| | ∙ Proteins | De novo synthesis of: | | |
| | | Myosin, Titin, | Contractile apparatus, enabling muscular contraction | [ |
| | | De novo synthesis of Thioredoxin | Prevention of cellular damage due to ROS | [ |
| | | | ||
| | ∙ Nucleobases | De novo synthesis/ degradation of purine | Precursors of nucleosides, deoxy-ribonulceotides | [ |
| | | and pyrimidine nucleotides | and ribonucleotides | |
| | | Salvage of purine and pyrimidine nucleotides | Maintaining energy state | [ |
| | | De novo synthesis/ rephosphorylation of: | | |
| | | ∘ nucleosides (ATP, CTP, GTP, TTP, UTP) | Energy production for muscular contraction | [ |
| ∘ NADH, NADPH | Energy production and providing redox-state | [ | ||
Figure 1Illustration of total substrate uptake rate () and oxygen demand () for a fixed glucose supply with (A) = 0.25 and (B) = 0.75. The ATP consumption rate (vATPase) were restricted to 21.6 . The panels A.1 and B.1 refer to the oxygen demand ( ) for the given glucose proportion, while panels A.2 and B.2 refer to the total substrate uptake rate (v). For each panel we marked the optimal substrate composition (*): (A)v= 25%, v= 64%, v= 0%, v= 11%, (B)v= 75%, v= 25%, v= 0%, v= 0%.
Simulation of varied substrate availability: baseline ATP consumption
| 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 4.1101 | 0.1626 | 0.6849 |
| 1.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.6007 | 0.6005 | 0.6576 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.00 | 3.9269 | 0.9806 | 0.2791 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 3.8124 | 1.2701 | 0.2091 |
| 0.79 | 0.21 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 3.8534 | 0.3823 | 0.7334 |
| 0.42 | 0.37 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 3.9830 | 0.3154 | 0.7000 |
| 0.33 | 0.19 | 0.43 | 0.05 | 3.9420 | 0.4536 | 0.6500 |
| 0.20 | 0.16 | 0.26 | 0.38 | 3.9485 | 0.5292 | 0.6000 |
| 0.46 | 0.03 | 0.46 | 0.05 | 3.7757 | 0.6847 | 0.5500 |
| 0.17 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.73 | 3.8880 | 0.7020 | 0.5000 |
| 0.20 | 0.04 | 0.41 | 0.35 | 3.8534 | 0.7841 | 0.4500 |
| 0.16 | 0.03 | 0.33 | 0.48 | 3.8448 | 0.8575 | 0.4000 |
| 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.86 | 3.8794 | 0.8942 | 0.3600 |
| 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.52 | 0.44 | 3.9010 | 0.9677 | 0.3000 |
| 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 0.86 | 3.7930 | 1.1556 | 0.2500 |
| 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.13 | 0.87 | 3.8297 | 1.2247 | 0.2070 |
All data is ranked by the calculated efficiency in descending order and given fully for exclusive utilization of each substrate. Results for altered substrate availability are listed by the achieved efficiency with a value of: 0.25, 0.3,0.36, 0.4, 0.45, 0.5, 0.55, 0.6, 0.65 and 0.7. A substrate combination of 79% glucose and 21% oleate to the total substrate uptake rate attained the highest calculated efficiency ( ). Least efficient ( ) was a combination of 13% acetoacetate and 87% lactate. For a complete overview of all results, please see Additional file 8 and 9. indicates oxygen demand; vs, total substrate uptake rate; and , calculated efficiency.
Figure 2Calculation of efficiency measure. A. Illustration of oxygen ( ) and total substrate uptake rates (v) for exclusive utilization of glucose (▴), oleate (+), acetoacetate (∙) and lactate (◼). Calculated distances for each criterion were visualized for acetoacetate, with dotted lines indicating distances to minimal and maximal oxygen uptake rate and straight lines to respective minimal and maximal total substrate uptake rates. Additional markers indicate theoretical values for best (green circle) and worst (red circle) solution. The efficiency index is defined as the relative distance for each solution to the best-case solution: . B. Bar plots for comparison of calculated efficiency indices for simulated substrate compositions to experimental results [70].
Simulation of experimental substrate supply and comparison by calculated efficiency
| | | | | | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | |||||||||||
| 1 | Glucose | 1.00 | | 3.60 | 0.60 | 6.00 | 0.83 | | 4.28 | 0.55 | 7.84 | 0.78 |
| 2.1 | Lactate | 1.00 | | 3.81 | 1.17 | 3.25 | 0.60 | | 4.71 | 1.41 | 3.34 | 0.21 |
| 2.2 | Glucose | 0.23 | | 3.73 | 0.96 | 3.89 | 0.69 | | 4.70 | 1.59 | 2.96 | 0.15 |
| | Lactate | 0.77 | | | | | | | | | ||
| 3.1 | Oleate | 1.00 | | 4.11 | 0.16 | 25.37 | 0.82 | | 4.94 | 0.18 | 28.07 | 0.67 |
| 3.2 | Glucose | 0.54 | | 4.02 | 0.24 | 16.75 | 0.85 | | 4.36 | 0.21 | 20.57 | 0.91 |
| | Oleate | 0.46 | | | | | | | | | ||
| 4.1 | Acetate | 1.00 | | 4.8 | 2.4 | 2 | 0 | | 4.28 | 1.68 | 2.55 | 0.31 |
| 4.2 | Glucose | 0.05 | | 4.6 | 2.11 | 2.19 | 0.14 | | 4.69 | 1.46 | 3.21 | 0.2 |
| | Acetate | 0.95 | | | | | | | | | ||
| 5.1 | Acetoacetate | 1.00 | | 3.93 | 0.98 | 4.00 | 0.65 | | 4.20 | 0.53 | 7.89 | 0.59 |
| 5.2 | Glucose | 0.26 | | 3.81 | 0.86 | 4.41 | 0.71 | | 4.95 | 1.01 | 4.91 | 0.37 |
| Acetoacetate | 0.74 | |||||||||||
indicates oxygen demand;vs, total substrate uptake rate; , calculated efficiency.
Simulations of substrate availability: cardiomyocyte target function
| 0.9000 | 0.0500 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 6.9154 | 4.8859 | 0.0000 | 0.4027 | 0.8438 |
| 0.2500 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.2083 | 0.0000 | 0.0417 | 0.0000 | 0.5000 | 4.0502 | 0.4093 | 0.1450 | 0.0000 | 0.8000 |
| 0.4500 | 0.0417 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0417 | 0.0000 | 0.1667 | 0.3000 | 0.0000 | 11.4761 | 2.0466 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.7500 |
| 0.2500 | 0.0250 | 0.0000 | 0.0500 | 0.0250 | 0.0250 | 0.0250 | 0.5500 | 0.0500 | 14.9112 | 3.2573 | 0.0000 | 0.0690 | 0.7000 |
| 0.0000 | 0.0250 | 0.0000 | 0.0250 | 0.0250 | 0.0000 | 0.0750 | 0.1000 | 0.7500 | 17.3465 | 3.4111 | 0.0098 | 0.0000 | 0.6500 |
| 0.2500 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0000 | 0.0167 | 0.0167 | 0.0333 | 0.6500 | 0.0000 | 20.2825 | 4.8859 | 0.0000 | 0.1150 | 0.6000 |
| 0.0500 | 0.0000 | 0.0333 | 0.0000 | 0.0167 | 0.0333 | 0.0167 | 0.4500 | 0.4000 | 22.5428 | 4.8859 | 0.0000 | 0.0103 | 0.5500 |
| 0.1500 | 0.0000 | 0.2250 | 0.0750 | 0.0750 | 0.0000 | 0.0750 | 0.1500 | 0.2500 | 25.2571 | 10.2332 | 0.0000 | 0.4532 | 0.5000 |
| 0.4000 | 0.0000 | 0.0167 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.0167 | 0.3500 | 0.2000 | 27.6323 | 9.7718 | 0.0000 | 0.3434 | 0.4500 |
| 0.3000 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.0000 | 0.0333 | 0.0500 | 0.6000 | 29.8822 | 10.2332 | 0.0000 | 0.2629 | 0.4000 |
| 0.2500 | 0.0167 | 0.0083 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0000 | 0.0167 | 0.3000 | 0.4000 | 32.3227 | 10.2332 | 0.0000 | 0.2266 | 0.3500 |
| 0.2500 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0000 | 0.0250 | 0.5000 | 0.2000 | 34.8810 | 10.2332 | 0.0000 | 0.2266 | 0.3000 |
| 0.2000 | 0.0000 | 0.0250 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.7500 | 0.0000 | 37.2907 | 9.7718 | 0.0000 | 0.1757 | 0.2500 |
| 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.0167 | 0.3000 | 0.6500 | 38.8292 | 9.7718 | 0.2160 | 0.0000 | 0.2000 |
| 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.0083 | 0.0000 | 0.0167 | 0.4000 | 0.5500 | 41.2341 | 10.2332 | 0.2160 | 0.0000 | 0.1500 |
| 0.0000 | 0.0167 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0167 | 0.0083 | 0.9500 | 0.0000 | 44.3334 | 9.7718 | 0.0000 | 0.0029 | 0.1000 |
| 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0000 | 0.0333 | 0.9000 | 0.0500 | 47.5569 | 10.2332 | 0.0120 | 0.0000 | 0.0500 |
| 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0000 | 0.0000 | 0.0083 | 0.0000 | 0.0333 | 0.9500 | 0.0000 | 47.9063 | 10.2332 | 0.2160 | 0.0000 | 0.0100 |
Results are shown for simulations of varied substrate availability of glucose, acetoactate, lactate and 6 different fatty aicids: palmitate, stearate, oleate, alpha-linoleate, eicosapentaenoate and docosahexaenoate. For each simulated composition efficiency values were calculated based on three criteria qj (j=1,2,..,nj): (1) oxygen requirement (
Figure 3Calculation of substrate and oxygen uptake rates in varied substrate availability. A. Calculated efficency values for each substrate in varied share (β) of the total substrate uptake rate (v). Values are mean ± standard deviation. B. Box and whisker plots of the proportion of substrates according to the total substrate uptake flux by efficiency score greater than 0.8. The bold horizontal line in panels indicate mean. : n = 76925. ° Outliers.
Figure 4Exogenous utilization of fatty acids and ATP production. A. Exogenous utilization of fatty acids and contribution to ATP production by fatty acid beta-oxidation. B. Steady state rates of ATP production from fatty acid beta-oxidation. Data are expressed as boxplots.
Figure 5Glucose utilization and ATP production. A. Degradation of exogenous and endogenous glucose (glycogenolysis) by glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation. B. Steady state rates of aerobic and anaerobic ATP production from glucose utilization derived from exogenous glucose and glycogenolysis. Data are expressed as boxplots. ∗significant difference between endogenous and exogenous glucose. p < 0.05 (unpaired t-test).