Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T16:37:07.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mitochondria1 uncoupling and the isodynamic equivalents of protein, fat and carbohydrate at the level of biochemical energy provision

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Geoffrey Livesey
Geoffrey Livesey
Affiliation:
AFRC Food Research InstituteColney Lane, Norwich NR4 Norwich NR4 7UA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. The effects of uncoupling of mitochondria1 oxidative phosphorylation on the efficiency of energy conservation during oxidation of amino acids, fatty acids, glycerol, glucose and 101 food proteins have been examined in order to compare how uncoupling at coupling site 1 affects energy yields compared with uncoupling at sites 2 + 3 and uncoupling by proton leakage. The effects of uncoupling by each mechanism on the isodynamic equivalents of carbohydrate, fat and protein at the level of cytoplasmic ATP yield have been estimated.

2. Energy conservation during amino acid oxidation decreases relative to that for glucose as uncoupling by all three mechanisms increases. This effect is least when uncoupling is at site 1 and is associated with a fall in the isodynamicequivalent for protein: glucose of 4%maximally, and a fall in the cytoplasmic ATP yield for glucose of 25% (15–30% when accounting for uncertainty in the choice of proton stoichiometries).

3. Variation in the efficiency of energy conservation for the different amino acids is large for both highly coupled and uncoupled mitochondria but the range of efficiencies for the oxidation of 101 food proteins is relatively small (less than 6% of the mean) for a tightly coupled system. This range increases absolutely (minimally fourfold) and relatively (minimally 44% of the mean value) with severely uncoupled mitochondria but is nearly constant (changes by less than 1% relative to the mean) within the probable physiologically relevant range of uncoupling in the whole body and in the full range of uncoupling at site 1. The rank order position of particular proteins within the range of values is found to change most for gelatin which is oxidized with least energy conservation in a severely (unphysiologically) uncoupled system and most efficiently in a fully coupled system when oxidation of protein is considered to be direct, i.e. not via gluconeogenesis.

4. For medium- and long-chain fatty acids, uncoupling at site 1 elevates the efficiency of energy conservation relative to that for glucose (maximally 4%) whereas uncoupling by other mechanisms decreases this relative efficiency. The pattern of effects for short-chain fatty acids resembles that for the amino acids.

5. The changes in the isodynamic equivalents of protein:glucose and of fat:glucose are small when uncoupling occurs at site I and tend to cancel for a mixed diet but are additive in the effect on food energy values when uncoupling is by the other mechanisms. Hence changes in the efficiency of oxidative energy coupling at site 1 in association with Luft's disease or dietary changes would result in effects which are of little true dietetic significance on the isodynamic equivalents of nutrients at the level of cytoplasmic ATP yield in vivo.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , March 1985 , pp. 381 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Ball, E. G. (1973). Energy Metabolism. Boston: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Blaxter, K. L. (1967). The Energy Metabolism of Ruminants. London: Hutchinson Scientific Publications.Google Scholar
Chance, B. (1970). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 66, 1175–1182.Google Scholar
Clark, J. B., Hayes, D. J., Byrne, E. & Morgan-Hughes, J. A. (1983). Biochemical Society Transactions 11, 626–627.Google Scholar
Deaver, O. E., McCusker, R. H. & Berdanier, C. D. (1984). Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 41, 745 (Abstract).Google Scholar
Hill, F. W. (1981). Federation Proceedings 30, 1434–1435.Google Scholar
Krebs, H. A. (1964). In Mammalian Protein Metabolism, vol. 1 pp.125–176 [Munro, H. and Allison, J. B., editors]. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Livesey, G. (1984). British Journal of Nutrition 51, 15–28.Google Scholar
Mcgilvery, R. W. (1979). Biochemistry: a Functional Approach, 2nd ed. London: W. B. Saunders.Google Scholar
Merril, A. L. & Watt, B. K. (1955) (revised 1973). Energy Values of Foods, Basis and Derivation. United StatesDepartment of Agriculture Handbook no. 74.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Judd, P. (1984). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 35, 111–116.Google Scholar
Miller, D. S. & Payne, P. R. (1959). British Journal of Nutrition 13, 501–508.Google Scholar
Morgan-hughes, J. A. (1982). In Recent Advances in Clinical Neurology, pp. 1–146 [ Mathews, W. B. and Gazer, G. H., editors]. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.Google Scholar
Morgan-Hughes, J. A., Landon, D. N., Land, J. M. & Clark, J. B. (1979). Journal of Neurological Science 43, 27–46.Google Scholar
Nicholls, D. G. (1976). FEBS Letter 61, 103–110.Google Scholar
Nicholls, D. G. (1982). Bioenergetics: an Introduction to the Chemiosmotic Theory. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Paul, A. A. & Southgate, D. A. T. (1978). McCance & Widdowson's The Composition of Foods, 4th ed. London: H.M. Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Rubner, N. (1902). In The Law of Energy Consumption in Nutrition, pp. 7–57 [Joy, R. T., editor]. Washington DC: US Army Research Institute.Google Scholar
Schulz, A. R. (1975). Journal of Nutrition 105, 200–207.Google Scholar
Skulachev, V. P. (1963). Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on Biochemistry, Moscow 5, 365–375.Google Scholar