| Literature DB >> 27456956 |
Steven Mink1,2, Subir K Roy Chowdhury3, Jose Gotes4,5, Zhao-Qin Cheng6, Krika Kasian6, Paul Fernyhough3,5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The development of lactic acidemia (LA) in septic shock (SS) is associated with an ominous prognosis. We previously showed that the mechanism of LA in SS may relate to impaired hepatic uptake of lactate, but the mechanism was not clear. Uptake of lactate by the liver occurs by a membrane-associated, pH-dependent, antiport system known as the monocarboxylate transporter. In the hepatocyte, lactate can then be metabolized by oxidative phosphorylation or converted to glucose in the cytosol. In the present study, we examined (1) whether hepatic mitochondrial dysfunction accounted for decreased uptake of lactate in a canine model of Pseudomonas aeruginosa SS, (2) whether norepinephrine (NE) treatment by increasing mean arterial pressure (MAP) could improve mitochondrial dysfunction and LA in this model, and (3) whether gentisic acid sodium salt (GSS), a novel phenolic compound, was superior to NE in these effects.Entities:
Keywords: ATP; Antioxidants; Electron transport chain; Gentisic acid; Infection; Lactic acidosis; Mitochondria; Norepinephrine; Septic shock; Vasodilation; Vasopressors
Year: 2016 PMID: 27456956 PMCID: PMC4960072 DOI: 10.1186/s40635-016-0095-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Intensive Care Med Exp ISSN: 2197-425X
Fig. 1In panel a in the three septic groups, mean arterial pressure (MAP) in the septic shock condition decreased to approximately 60 % of baseline. In the gentisic septic group and the norepinephrine (NE) septic group, both treatments increased MAP back to the baseline value. In panel b heart rates increased in the septic groups over the course of the study. In the gentisic septic group, heart rates were lower at 3 and 5 h post-treatment conditions as compared with the other septic groups. GSS is gentisic acid sodium salt. Statistical analyses included two-way repeated measures analysis of variance and Student Newman Keuls (SNK) multiple comparison multiple comparison test
Systemic vascular resistances in the five groups (dynes S/cm5: mean ± SD)
| Baseline | Septic/sham shock/condition | 3 h post | 5 h post | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-septic control group (n = 16) | 2299 ± 603 | 2794 ± 1024+ | 2819 ± 1114 | 2829 ± 1007 |
| Septic control group ( | 2583 ± 803 | 1351 ± 374* | 1745 ± 1037 | 2226 ± 1503 |
| Gentisic septic group ( | 2717 ± 605 | 1272 ± 695* | 2767 ± 607 | 3234 ± 1013# |
| Norepinephrine septic group ( | 2778 ± 526 | 1539 ± .375* | 2573 ± 968 | 2767 ± 1063 |
| Gentisic non-septic group ( | 2740 ± 340 | 2416 ± 499 | 1798 ± 256 | 1866 ± 25 |
Statistics by two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student Newman Keuls multiple comparison test that included the five groups and four time periods. *P < 0.05 vs baseline; +P < 0.05 vs all septic groups; #P < 0.05 vs gentisic non septic group
Cardiac indices in the five groups (l/min/kg: mean ± SD)
| Baseline | Septic/sham shock/condition | 3 h post | 5 h post | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-septic control group ( | 0.15 ± .03 | 0.15 ± .05 | 0.14 ± .04 | 0.13 ± .03 |
| Septic control group ( | 0.13 ± .04 | 0.17 ± .04 | 0.15 ± .07 | 0.11 ± .06 |
| Gentisic septic group ( | 0.12 ± .02 | 0.20 ± .08*+ | 0.12 ± .03 | 0.11 ± .04 |
| Norepinephrine septic group ( | 0.12 ± .02 | 0.15 ± .03 | 0.14 ± .03 | 0.14 ± .04 |
| Gentisic non-septic group ( | 0.12 ± .02 | 0.13 ± .02 | 0.16 ± .04 | 0.16 ± .05 |
Statistics by two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student Newman Keuls multiple comparison test that included the five groups and four time periods. *P < 0.05 vs baseline; +P < 0.05 vs non septic control group
Left ventricular filling pressures (Pwp) in the five groups (mmHg: mean ± SD)
| Baseline | Septic/sham shock/condition | 3 h post | 5 h post | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Non-septic control group ( | 10.8 ± .1.6 | 12.8 ± 1.8*% | 13.8 ± 2.1*% | 13.9 ± 1.8! |
| Septic control group ( | 10.7 ± 1.1 | 8.8 ± 1.6* | 9.4 ± 1.4# | 9.3 ± .1.4# |
| Gentisic septic group ( | 10.2 ± 1.6 | 9.3 ± 2.6 | 11 ± 2.6 | 12 ± .2.9* |
| Norepinephrine septic group ( | 10.0 ± .2 | 9.0 ± 1.6 | 10.2 ± 2.8 | 10.1 ± 2.7# |
| Gentisic non-septic group ( | 13.0 ± 2.6+ | 14.2 ± 3.7 % | 14.2 ± 2.2 % | 13.6 ± 4.2 %* |
Statistics by two way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student Newman Keuls multiple comparison test that included the five groups and four time periods. *P < 0.05 vs baseline; %P < 0.05 vs all septic groups; #P < 0.05 vs gentisic septic group; !P < 0.05 vs septic control group and NE (norepinephrine) septic group; +P < 0.05 vs other groups
Fig. 2Serum lactate increased in the NE septic group and the septic control group over the course of study, while it decreased in the non septic groups and did not change in the gentisic septic group. GSS is gentisic acid sodium salt. Statistical analyses included two-way repeated measures analysis of variance and Student Newman Keuls (SNK) multiple comparison multiple comparison test
Fig. 3Oxygen consumption rates (OCR) were measured in the Seahorse Instrument and examples are shown from mitochondria harvested from an animal in the septic control group (panel a) in a non-septic control dog (panel b) in the norepinephrine (NE) septic group (panel c) and in the gentisic septic group (panel d) under different metabolic conditions. In each experiment, we obtained two measurements in each condition and the average of the two conditions was obtained. In panel a basal OCR was slightly low in the animal in the septic control group as compared with the non septic control group. When adenosine diphosphate (ADP) was added to the preparation, OCR rate in the septic animal in panel A was not different from the animal in the non-septic control group (panel b). However, the response to FCCP (carbonyl cyanide p-triflouromethoxy-phenylhydrazone) in the animal in the septic control group (panel a) was attenuated as compared with the animal in the non-septic control group (panel b). With norepinephrine treatment, there was a restoration in the response to FCCP in the NE septic group (panel c). In the animal in the gentisic septic group, there was a large response in OCR to ADP which nearly equaled the response to FCCP (panel d)
Fig. 4Mean oxygen consumption rates (OCR) under the different metabolic conditions are shown for the five groups. In panel a basal OCR in the septic control group was significantly less than that measured in the gentisic septic group. In panel b coupled respiration in the gentisic septic group was significantly greater than the other groups. In panel c uncoupled (maximal) OCR in the septic control group decreased as compared with the other groups in which we used a FCCP of 4 μM (i.e., maximal) in the analysis. In panel d spare respiratory capacity was decreased in the septic control group as compared with the other groups. Spare respiratory capacity was calculated from the difference between uncoupled and basal respiration (see text for Discussion). Statistical analyses included a one way analysis of variance and Student Newman Keuls (SNK) multiple comparison multiple comparison test