Nina Zeng1, Randall F D'Souza1, Brie Sorrenson2,3, Troy L Merry3,4, Matthew P G Barnett5, Cameron J Mitchell1, David Cameron-Smith6,7,8. 1. Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92 019, Victoria Street West, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. 2. Department of Molecular Medicine and Pathology, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 3. Maurice Wilkins Centre for Molecular Biodiscovery, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 4. Discipline of Nutrition, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. 5. Food Nutrition and Health Team, AgResearch, Palmerston North, 4474, New Zealand. 6. Liggins Institute, The University of Auckland, Private Bag 92 019, Victoria Street West, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand. d.cameron-smith@auckland.ac.nz. 7. Food and Bio-based Products Group, AgResearch, Palmerston North, 4474, New Zealand. d.cameron-smith@auckland.ac.nz. 8. Riddet Institute, Palmerston North, 4442, New Zealand. d.cameron-smith@auckland.ac.nz.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Dietary protein and resistance exercise (RE) are both potent stimuli of the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1). Sestrins1, 2, 3 are multifunctional proteins that regulate mTORC1, stimulate autophagy and alleviate oxidative stress. Of this family, Sestrin2 is a putative leucine sensor implicated in mTORC1 and AMP-dependent protein kinase (AMPK) regulation. There is currently no data examining the responsiveness of Sestrin2 to dietary protein ingestion, with or without RE. METHODS: In Study 1, 16 males ingested either 10 or 20 g of milk protein concentrate (MPC) with muscle biopsies collected pre, 90 and 210 min post-beverage consumption. In Study 2, 20 males performed a bout of RE immediately followed by the consumption of 9 g of MPC or carbohydrate placebo. Analysis of Sestrins, AMPK and antioxidant responses was examined. RESULTS: Dietary protein ingestion did not result in Sestrin2 mobility shift. After RE, Sestrin2 phosphorylation state was significantly altered and was not further modified by post-exercise protein or carbohydrate ingestion. With RE, AMPK phosphorylation remained stable, while the mRNA expressions of several antioxidants were upregulated. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary protein ingestion did not affect the signalling by the family of Sestrins. With RE, Sestrin2 was hyperphosphorylated, with no further evidence of a relationship to AMPK signalling.
PURPOSE: Dietary protein and resistance exercise (RE) are both potent stimuli of the mammalian target of rapamycin complex 1 (mTORC1). Sestrins1, 2, 3 are multifunctional proteins that regulate mTORC1, stimulate autophagy and alleviate oxidative stress. Of this family, Sestrin2 is a putative leucine sensor implicated in mTORC1 and AMP-dependent protein kinase (AMPK) regulation. There is currently no data examining the responsiveness of Sestrin2 to dietary protein ingestion, with or without RE. METHODS: In Study 1, 16 males ingested either 10 or 20 g of milk protein concentrate (MPC) with muscle biopsies collected pre, 90 and 210 min post-beverage consumption. In Study 2, 20 males performed a bout of RE immediately followed by the consumption of 9 g of MPC or carbohydrate placebo. Analysis of Sestrins, AMPK and antioxidant responses was examined. RESULTS: Dietary protein ingestion did not result in Sestrin2 mobility shift. After RE, Sestrin2 phosphorylation state was significantly altered and was not further modified by post-exercise protein or carbohydrate ingestion. With RE, AMPK phosphorylation remained stable, while the mRNA expressions of several antioxidants were upregulated. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary protein ingestion did not affect the signalling by the family of Sestrins. With RE, Sestrin2 was hyperphosphorylated, with no further evidence of a relationship to AMPK signalling.
Authors: Joshua C Anthony; Ali K Reiter; Tracy G Anthony; Stephen J Crozier; Charles H Lang; David A MacLean; Scot R Kimball; Leonard S Jefferson Journal: Diabetes Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Tyler A Churchward-Venne; Nicholas A Burd; Cameron J Mitchell; Daniel W D West; Andrew Philp; George R Marcotte; Steven K Baker; Keith Baar; Stuart M Phillips Journal: J Physiol Date: 2012-03-25 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Anju Singh; Guoyu Ling; Avvaru N Suhasini; Ping Zhang; Masayuki Yamamoto; Ana Navas-Acien; Gregory Cosgrove; Rubin M Tuder; Thomas W Kensler; Walter H Watson; Shyam Biswal Journal: Free Radic Biol Med Date: 2008-11-01 Impact factor: 7.376
Authors: Robert A Saxton; Kevin E Knockenhauer; Rachel L Wolfson; Lynne Chantranupong; Michael E Pacold; Tim Wang; Thomas U Schwartz; David M Sabatini Journal: Science Date: 2015-11-19 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Luciene Lenhare; Barbara M Crisol; Vagner R R Silva; Carlos K Katashima; André V Cordeiro; Karina D Pereira; Augusto D Luchessi; Adelino S R da Silva; Dennys E Cintra; Leandro P Moura; José R Pauli; Eduardo R Ropelle Journal: Exp Gerontol Date: 2017-07-17 Impact factor: 4.032
Authors: N Zeng; U Prodhan; R F D'Souza; F Ramzan; S M Mitchell; P Sharma; S O Knowles; N C Roy; A Sjödin; K-H Wagner; A M Milan; D Cameron-Smith; C J Mitchell Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2019 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Matthew J Lees; Oliver J Wilson; Erin K Webb; Daniel A Traylor; Todd Prior; Antonis Elia; Paul S Harlow; Alistair D Black; Paul J Parker; Nick Harris; Michael Cooke; Christopher Balchin; Mathew Butterworth; Stuart M Phillips; Theocharis Ispoglou Journal: Nutrients Date: 2020-07-12 Impact factor: 5.717
Authors: Seung-Hyun Ro; Julianne Fay; Cesar I Cyuzuzo; Yura Jang; Naeun Lee; Hyun-Seob Song; Edward N Harris Journal: Front Cell Dev Biol Date: 2020-12-03