Tracer-based assessments of hepatic anaplerotic and TCA cycle flux: practicality, stoichiometry, and hidden assumptions

Two groups recently used different tracer methods to quantify liver-specific flux rates. The studies had a similar goal, i.e., to characterize mitochondrial oxidative function. These efforts could have a direct impact on our ability to understand metabolic abnormalities that affect the pathophysiolo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAmerican journal of physiology: endocrinology and metabolism Vol. 309; no. 8; pp. E727 - E735
Main Authors Previs, Stephen F., Kelley, David E.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States American Physiological Society 15.10.2015
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
Abstract Two groups recently used different tracer methods to quantify liver-specific flux rates. The studies had a similar goal, i.e., to characterize mitochondrial oxidative function. These efforts could have a direct impact on our ability to understand metabolic abnormalities that affect the pathophysiology of fatty liver and allow us to examine mechanisms surrounding potential therapeutic interventions. Briefly, one method couples the continuous infusion of [ 13 C]acetate with direct real-time measurements of [ 13 C]glutamate labeling in liver; the other method administers [ 13 C]propionate, in combination with other tracers, and subsequently measures the 13 C labeling of plasma glucose and/or acetaminophen-glucuronide. It appears that a controversy has arisen, since the respective methods yielded different estimates of the anaplerotic/TCA flux ratio (V ANA :V TCA ) in “control” subjects, i.e., the [ 13 C]acetate- and [ 13 C]propionate-derived V ANA :V TCA flux ratios appear to be ∼1.4 and ∼5, respectively. While the deep expertise in the respective groups makes it somewhat trivial for each to perform the tracer studies, the data interpretation is inherently difficult. The current perspective was undertaken to examine potential factors that could account for or contribute to the apparent differences. Attention was directed toward 1) matters of practicality, 2) issues surrounding stoichiometry, and 3) hidden assumptions. We believe that the [ 13 C]acetate method has certain weaknesses that limit its utility; in contrast, the [ 13 C]propionate method likely yields a more correct answer. We hope our discussion will help clarify the differences in the recent reports. Presumably this will be of interest to investigators who are considering tracer-based studies of liver metabolism.
AbstractList Two groups recently used different tracer methods to quantify liver-specific flux rates. The studies had a similar goal, i.e., to characterize mitochondrial oxidative function. These efforts could have a direct impact on our ability to understand metabolic abnormalities that affect the pathophysiology of fatty liver and allow us to examine mechanisms surrounding potential therapeutic interventions. Briefly, one method couples the continuous infusion of [...]acetate with direct real-time measurements of [...]glutamate labeling in liver; the other method administers [...]propionate, in combination with other tracers, and subsequently measures the ... labeling of plasma glucose and/or acetaminophen-glucuronide. It appears that a controversy has arisen, since the respective methods yielded different estimates of the anaplerotic/TCA flux ratio (...) in "control" subjects, i.e., the [...]acetate- and [...]propionate-derived VANA:VTCA flux ratios appear to be ~1.4 and ~5, respectively. While the deep expertise in the respective groups makes it somewhat trivial for each to perform the tracer studies, the data interpretation is inherently difficult. The current perspective was undertaken to examine potential factors that could account for or contribute to the apparent differences. Attention was directed toward 1) matters of practicality, 2) issues surrounding stoichiometry, and 3) hidden assumptions. We believe that the [...]acetate method has certain weaknesses that limit its utility; in contrast, the [...]propionate method likely yields a more correct answer. We hope our discussion will help clarify the differences in the recent reports. Presumably this will be of interest to investigators who are considering tracer-based studies of liver metabolism. (ProQuest: ... denotes formulae/symbols omitted.)
Two groups recently used different tracer methods to quantify liver-specific flux rates. The studies had a similar goal, i.e., to characterize mitochondrial oxidative function. These efforts could have a direct impact on our ability to understand metabolic abnormalities that affect the pathophysiology of fatty liver and allow us to examine mechanisms surrounding potential therapeutic interventions. Briefly, one method couples the continuous infusion of [(13)C]acetate with direct real-time measurements of [(13)C]glutamate labeling in liver; the other method administers [(13)C]propionate, in combination with other tracers, and subsequently measures the (13)C labeling of plasma glucose and/or acetaminophen-glucuronide. It appears that a controversy has arisen, since the respective methods yielded different estimates of the anaplerotic/TCA flux ratio (VANA:VTCA) in "control" subjects, i.e., the [(13)C]acetate- and [(13)C]propionate-derived VANA:VTCA flux ratios appear to be ∼1.4 and ∼5, respectively. While the deep expertise in the respective groups makes it somewhat trivial for each to perform the tracer studies, the data interpretation is inherently difficult. The current perspective was undertaken to examine potential factors that could account for or contribute to the apparent differences. Attention was directed toward 1) matters of practicality, 2) issues surrounding stoichiometry, and 3) hidden assumptions. We believe that the [(13)C]acetate method has certain weaknesses that limit its utility; in contrast, the [(13)C]propionate method likely yields a more correct answer. We hope our discussion will help clarify the differences in the recent reports. Presumably this will be of interest to investigators who are considering tracer-based studies of liver metabolism.Two groups recently used different tracer methods to quantify liver-specific flux rates. The studies had a similar goal, i.e., to characterize mitochondrial oxidative function. These efforts could have a direct impact on our ability to understand metabolic abnormalities that affect the pathophysiology of fatty liver and allow us to examine mechanisms surrounding potential therapeutic interventions. Briefly, one method couples the continuous infusion of [(13)C]acetate with direct real-time measurements of [(13)C]glutamate labeling in liver; the other method administers [(13)C]propionate, in combination with other tracers, and subsequently measures the (13)C labeling of plasma glucose and/or acetaminophen-glucuronide. It appears that a controversy has arisen, since the respective methods yielded different estimates of the anaplerotic/TCA flux ratio (VANA:VTCA) in "control" subjects, i.e., the [(13)C]acetate- and [(13)C]propionate-derived VANA:VTCA flux ratios appear to be ∼1.4 and ∼5, respectively. While the deep expertise in the respective groups makes it somewhat trivial for each to perform the tracer studies, the data interpretation is inherently difficult. The current perspective was undertaken to examine potential factors that could account for or contribute to the apparent differences. Attention was directed toward 1) matters of practicality, 2) issues surrounding stoichiometry, and 3) hidden assumptions. We believe that the [(13)C]acetate method has certain weaknesses that limit its utility; in contrast, the [(13)C]propionate method likely yields a more correct answer. We hope our discussion will help clarify the differences in the recent reports. Presumably this will be of interest to investigators who are considering tracer-based studies of liver metabolism.
Two groups recently used different tracer methods to quantify liver-specific flux rates. The studies had a similar goal, i.e., to characterize mitochondrial oxidative function. These efforts could have a direct impact on our ability to understand metabolic abnormalities that affect the pathophysiology of fatty liver and allow us to examine mechanisms surrounding potential therapeutic interventions. Briefly, one method couples the continuous infusion of [(13)C]acetate with direct real-time measurements of [(13)C]glutamate labeling in liver; the other method administers [(13)C]propionate, in combination with other tracers, and subsequently measures the (13)C labeling of plasma glucose and/or acetaminophen-glucuronide. It appears that a controversy has arisen, since the respective methods yielded different estimates of the anaplerotic/TCA flux ratio (VANA:VTCA) in "control" subjects, i.e., the [(13)C]acetate- and [(13)C]propionate-derived VANA:VTCA flux ratios appear to be ∼1.4 and ∼5, respectively. While the deep expertise in the respective groups makes it somewhat trivial for each to perform the tracer studies, the data interpretation is inherently difficult. The current perspective was undertaken to examine potential factors that could account for or contribute to the apparent differences. Attention was directed toward 1) matters of practicality, 2) issues surrounding stoichiometry, and 3) hidden assumptions. We believe that the [(13)C]acetate method has certain weaknesses that limit its utility; in contrast, the [(13)C]propionate method likely yields a more correct answer. We hope our discussion will help clarify the differences in the recent reports. Presumably this will be of interest to investigators who are considering tracer-based studies of liver metabolism.
Two groups recently used different tracer methods to quantify liver-specific flux rates. The studies had a similar goal, i.e., to characterize mitochondrial oxidative function. These efforts could have a direct impact on our ability to understand metabolic abnormalities that affect the pathophysiology of fatty liver and allow us to examine mechanisms surrounding potential therapeutic interventions. Briefly, one method couples the continuous infusion of [ 13 C]acetate with direct real-time measurements of [ 13 C]glutamate labeling in liver; the other method administers [ 13 C]propionate, in combination with other tracers, and subsequently measures the 13 C labeling of plasma glucose and/or acetaminophen-glucuronide. It appears that a controversy has arisen, since the respective methods yielded different estimates of the anaplerotic/TCA flux ratio (V ANA :V TCA ) in “control” subjects, i.e., the [ 13 C]acetate- and [ 13 C]propionate-derived V ANA :V TCA flux ratios appear to be ∼1.4 and ∼5, respectively. While the deep expertise in the respective groups makes it somewhat trivial for each to perform the tracer studies, the data interpretation is inherently difficult. The current perspective was undertaken to examine potential factors that could account for or contribute to the apparent differences. Attention was directed toward 1) matters of practicality, 2) issues surrounding stoichiometry, and 3) hidden assumptions. We believe that the [ 13 C]acetate method has certain weaknesses that limit its utility; in contrast, the [ 13 C]propionate method likely yields a more correct answer. We hope our discussion will help clarify the differences in the recent reports. Presumably this will be of interest to investigators who are considering tracer-based studies of liver metabolism.
Author Kelley, David E.
Previs, Stephen F.
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Stephen F.
  surname: Previs
  fullname: Previs, Stephen F.
  organization: Merck Research Laboratories, Kenilworth, New Jersey
– sequence: 2
  givenname: David E.
  surname: Kelley
  fullname: Kelley, David E.
  organization: Merck Research Laboratories, Kenilworth, New Jersey
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26330343$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNp9kTtv2zAUhYkiReO4_QMdCgJZMkQuX3plC4w2LRCgizsLV9QVTEMiFZJC4n8fqnY7ZOhEEvc7B5fnXJEL6ywS8pmzDee5-AqHCW3nNowJXmwE4_k7skoDkfE8zy_IivFaZrxS9SW5CuHAGCtzJT6QS1FIyaSSK_K886DRZy0E7CiEgCGMaGOgrqd7nCAaTcHCNKB3p3tHd9t7qo96QNoP88sdnZJHmsFg4vGWhuiM3hs3YvTpuQj2puvQLvbzOEXjbPhI3vcwBPx0Ptfk9_dvu-2P7PHXw8_t_WOmZV3GrMUq_aFvyxIZK3iLUEmZy7S-aAtVVwxaVrC817WEri-FwlKB5qwtZSWBo1yTm5Pv5N3TjCE2owkahwEsujk0vBSiFpXiLKHXb9CDm71N2y1UoSq1hLYmX87U3I7YNZM3I_hj8zfSBIgToL0LwWP_D-GsWXprzr01f3prlt6SqHoj0ibCklT0YIb_SV8BmtifbQ
CODEN AJPMD9
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1038_s41568_023_00632_z
crossref_primary_10_1002_mas_21507
crossref_primary_10_1098_rsta_2015_0378
crossref_primary_10_3233_JHD_170264
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_celrep_2016_06_006
crossref_primary_10_1172_jci_insight_99762
crossref_primary_10_3389_ftox_2021_750431
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pharmthera_2017_07_008
crossref_primary_10_1210_er_2017_00211
crossref_primary_10_1161_CIRCRESAHA_117_311002
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_tem_2016_11_006
crossref_primary_10_1074_jbc_M116_720631
crossref_primary_10_1152_ajpregu_00047_2019
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_nutos_2021_02_005
crossref_primary_10_1152_ajpendo_00492_2015
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ymben_2019_12_005
crossref_primary_10_1074_jbc_M117_811547
crossref_primary_10_1124_jpet_117_241091
crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0170382
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_isci_2022_103787
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cmet_2016_06_005
crossref_primary_10_3168_jds_2020_18914
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_bbalip_2022_159209
crossref_primary_10_1038_s42255_021_00419_2
crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cmet_2019_03_014
Cites_doi 10.1016/0026-0495(95)90133-7
10.1016/S0003-2697(02)00465-7
10.1016/S0021-9258(18)51586-6
10.1152/physrev.1957.37.2.252
10.1126/science.1948033
10.1073/pnas.120131997
10.1093/ajcn/51.2.248
10.1016/S0026-0495(97)90244-4
10.1152/ajpendo.1986.251.1.E117
10.1152/ajpendo.1999.277.1.E154
10.1152/ajpregu.1985.248.4.R391
10.1016/j.cmet.2011.11.004
10.1152/ajpendo.1996.270.5.E882
10.1152/ajpendo.1998.274.6.E978
10.1016/S0022-2275(20)33464-7
10.2337/diab.22.8.573
10.1038/nm.3789
10.1016/S0014-5793(97)00764-3
10.1042/bj1010242
10.1210/endo-70-1-47
10.1016/j.ab.2003.12.036
10.1152/ajpendo.1993.264.6.E848
10.1074/jbc.R200006200
10.1016/S0021-9258(20)89598-2
10.2337/diab.42.5.732
10.1152/ajpendo.1998.275.5.E843
10.1016/0006-3002(55)90012-3
10.1194/jlr.M023382
10.1152/ajpendo.1993.265.4.E636
10.1038/nm.3415
10.1016/S0021-9258(20)89599-4
10.1172/JCI200111775
10.1152/ajpendo.2000.278.4.E593
10.1152/ajpendo.1994.267.2.E273
10.1172/JCI117652
10.1038/162963b0
10.1006/abio.1998.2796
10.1152/ajpendo.1998.274.5.E954
10.2337/diabetes.49.12.2063
10.1152/ajpendo.1999.277.6.E1022
10.1038/nm.3790
10.1074/jbc.270.34.19806
10.1053/jhep.2002.32527
10.1006/abio.1994.1095
10.1152/ajpendo.1995.269.2.E269
10.1194/jlr.D600048-JLR200
10.1016/j.metabol.2008.05.010
10.1172/JCI117651
10.1016/S0021-9258(19)74421-4
ContentType Journal Article
Copyright Copyright © 2015 the American Physiological Society.
Copyright American Physiological Society Oct 15, 2015
Copyright_xml – notice: Copyright © 2015 the American Physiological Society.
– notice: Copyright American Physiological Society Oct 15, 2015
DBID AAYXX
CITATION
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7QP
7TS
7U7
C1K
7X8
DOI 10.1152/ajpendo.00216.2015
DatabaseName CrossRef
Medline
MEDLINE
MEDLINE (Ovid)
MEDLINE
MEDLINE
PubMed
Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts
Physical Education Index
Toxicology Abstracts
Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle CrossRef
MEDLINE
Medline Complete
MEDLINE with Full Text
PubMed
MEDLINE (Ovid)
Toxicology Abstracts
Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts
Physical Education Index
Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList Toxicology Abstracts
MEDLINE - Academic
MEDLINE
CrossRef
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: EIF
  name: MEDLINE
  url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search
  sourceTypes: Index Database
DeliveryMethod fulltext_linktorsrc
Discipline Medicine
Anatomy & Physiology
EISSN 1522-1555
EndPage E735
ExternalDocumentID 3845696771
26330343
10_1152_ajpendo_00216_2015
Genre Journal Article
Feature
GroupedDBID ---
23M
2WC
39C
4.4
53G
5GY
5VS
6J9
AAYXX
ABJNI
ACPRK
ADBBV
AENEX
AFRAH
ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS
BAWUL
BKKCC
BKOMP
BTFSW
CITATION
E3Z
EBS
EJD
EMOBN
F5P
GX1
H13
ITBOX
KQ8
OK1
P2P
P6G
PQQKQ
RAP
RHI
RPL
RPRKH
TR2
W8F
WH7
WOQ
XSW
YSK
AAFWJ
CGR
CUY
CVF
ECM
EIF
NPM
7QP
7TS
7U7
C1K
7X8
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c397t-be8193fb77e0061bea833536332b64980ab0605fc93adf724e74ac10b7383a1e3
ISSN 0193-1849
1522-1555
IngestDate Fri Jul 11 09:34:54 EDT 2025
Mon Jun 30 08:40:10 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 03 07:06:09 EDT 2025
Tue Jul 01 03:18:22 EDT 2025
Thu Apr 24 22:57:34 EDT 2025
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 8
Keywords stable isotopes
fatty liver
NASH
metabolic disease
diabetes
insulin resistance
Language English
License Copyright © 2015 the American Physiological Society.
LinkModel OpenURL
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c397t-be8193fb77e0061bea833536332b64980ab0605fc93adf724e74ac10b7383a1e3
Notes SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 14
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
PMID 26330343
PQID 1726484330
PQPubID 48583
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_1722928410
proquest_journals_1726484330
pubmed_primary_26330343
crossref_primary_10_1152_ajpendo_00216_2015
crossref_citationtrail_10_1152_ajpendo_00216_2015
ProviderPackageCode CITATION
AAYXX
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2015-10-15
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2015-10-15
PublicationDate_xml – month: 10
  year: 2015
  text: 2015-10-15
  day: 15
PublicationDecade 2010
PublicationPlace United States
PublicationPlace_xml – name: United States
– name: Bethesda
PublicationTitle American journal of physiology: endocrinology and metabolism
PublicationTitleAlternate Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab
PublicationYear 2015
Publisher American Physiological Society
Publisher_xml – name: American Physiological Society
References B20
B21
B24
B25
B26
B27
B28
B29
B31
B32
B33
B34
B35
B36
B37
B38
Di Buono M (B10) 2000; 41
B39
Magnusson I (B30) 1991; 266
B1
B2
B3
B4
B5
B6
B7
B8
B9
Schumann WC (B44) 1991; 266
B40
B41
Katz J (B22) 1989; 264
B42
B43
B45
B46
B47
B48
B49
B11
B12
B13
B14
B15
B16
B17
B18
B19
Katz J (B23) 1993; 268
References_xml – ident: B37
  doi: 10.1016/0026-0495(95)90133-7
– ident: B6
  doi: 10.1016/S0003-2697(02)00465-7
– volume: 264
  start-page: 12994
  year: 1989
  ident: B22
  publication-title: J Biol Chem
  doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)51586-6
– ident: B47
  doi: 10.1152/physrev.1957.37.2.252
– ident: B42
  doi: 10.1126/science.1948033
– ident: B19
  doi: 10.1073/pnas.120131997
– ident: B48
  doi: 10.1093/ajcn/51.2.248
– ident: B36
  doi: 10.1016/S0026-0495(97)90244-4
– ident: B9
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1986.251.1.E117
– ident: B39
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1999.277.1.E154
– ident: B20
  doi: 10.1152/ajpregu.1985.248.4.R391
– ident: B46
  doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2011.11.004
– ident: B49
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1996.270.5.E882
– ident: B32
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1998.274.6.E978
– volume: 41
  start-page: 1516
  year: 2000
  ident: B10
  publication-title: J Lipid Res
  doi: 10.1016/S0022-2275(20)33464-7
– ident: B11
  doi: 10.2337/diab.22.8.573
– ident: B5
  doi: 10.1038/nm.3789
– ident: B17
  doi: 10.1016/S0014-5793(97)00764-3
– ident: B24
  doi: 10.1042/bj1010242
– ident: B25
  doi: 10.1210/endo-70-1-47
– ident: B14
  doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2003.12.036
– ident: B31
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1993.264.6.E848
– ident: B35
  doi: 10.1074/jbc.R200006200
– volume: 266
  start-page: 6975
  year: 1991
  ident: B30
  publication-title: J Biol Chem
  doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(20)89598-2
– ident: B8
  doi: 10.2337/diab.42.5.732
– ident: B18
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1998.275.5.E843
– ident: B21
  doi: 10.1016/0006-3002(55)90012-3
– ident: B43
  doi: 10.1194/jlr.M023382
– ident: B26
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1993.265.4.E636
– ident: B4
  doi: 10.1038/nm.3415
– volume: 266
  start-page: 6985
  year: 1991
  ident: B44
  publication-title: J Biol Chem
  doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(20)89599-4
– ident: B28
  doi: 10.1172/JCI200111775
– ident: B12
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.2000.278.4.E593
– ident: B38
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1994.267.2.E273
– ident: B45
  doi: 10.1172/JCI117652
– ident: B34
  doi: 10.1038/162963b0
– ident: B15
  doi: 10.1006/abio.1998.2796
– ident: B27
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1998.274.5.E954
– ident: B13
  doi: 10.2337/diabetes.49.12.2063
– ident: B41
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1999.277.6.E1022
– ident: B3
  doi: 10.1038/nm.3790
– ident: B40
  doi: 10.1074/jbc.270.34.19806
– ident: B7
  doi: 10.1053/jhep.2002.32527
– ident: B16
  doi: 10.1006/abio.1994.1095
– ident: B1
  doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.1995.269.2.E269
– ident: B29
  doi: 10.1194/jlr.D600048-JLR200
– ident: B2
  doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2008.05.010
– ident: B33
  doi: 10.1172/JCI117651
– volume: 268
  start-page: 25509
  year: 1993
  ident: B23
  publication-title: J Biol Chem
  doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(19)74421-4
SSID ssj0007542
Score 2.3063545
Snippet Two groups recently used different tracer methods to quantify liver-specific flux rates. The studies had a similar goal, i.e., to characterize mitochondrial...
SourceID proquest
pubmed
crossref
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
Enrichment Source
StartPage E727
SubjectTerms Acetaminophen - analogs & derivatives
Acetaminophen - metabolism
Acetates
Blood Glucose - metabolism
Carbon Isotopes
Citric Acid Cycle
Data interpretation
Fatty Liver - metabolism
Fluctuations
Glucose
Glutamic Acid - metabolism
Humans
Liver
Liver - metabolism
Metabolic Flux Analysis - methods
Metabolic Flux Analysis - standards
Metabolism
Mitochondria - metabolism
Mitochondria, Liver - metabolism
Oxidation-Reduction
Pathology
Plasma
Propionates
Radioactive Tracers
Title Tracer-based assessments of hepatic anaplerotic and TCA cycle flux: practicality, stoichiometry, and hidden assumptions
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26330343
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1726484330
https://www.proquest.com/docview/1722928410
Volume 309
hasFullText 1
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV3db9MwELeqISFeEGx8FAYyEuKlCyRxPnmrpk4T-0BIrbS3yHYcbagkVZsKlT-Ov40720ldDSbgJY3yYae-Xy539t3vCHkrS11UO_RAOWZepGTkZXFWefC1C2UYVbFUmI18cZmczqJPV_HVYPDTiVpat-K9_PHbvJL_kSocA7liluw_SLZvFA7APsgXtiBh2P6djJdcqqWHX6JyxHuOzZWxABeWjJUv5mrZdMSs0-PxSG6goVE1X2NPXaKUNshxxMEcvJHXmJbfmjV2vO0aqUZq7ATkv53k6_hru3Ufh4hCz5mYXBis_lOXDSioekv5BM0DAOcdhSGqZww5XjmxZ9uw4zNcX9j0Qfg2f8LOVgSa5dTkazoJAqjeu2fQULQRqu48Z848cD6NNlVWN4PfDOZP7Cpv5ucOSjNHFU9SQzpw-xsRI-cs_4o1hhucUAswVMU-5A4h9-Xn4mR2fl5MJ1fT3bPGAMjA-syTFCkM7oXgpmAFjbMvW7Z6rC5s0vXNn-mStuLww-3udw2jP3g72uqZPiIPrbtCxwZ7j8lA1fvkYFzztvm2oe9oP8CbfXL_wsZpHJDvLjKpg0zaVNQikzrIhP2SAjKpRiZFZH6kLi6P6A4qj_QNBpPUweQTMjuZTI9PPVviw5NgCLeeUGCRskqkqUJjWiiOSYAsYSwUSZRnPhc-ONyVzBkvqzSMVBpxGfgiZRnjgWJPyV7d1Oo5oRnYoiXOdsiURzwTXOSZiAMVJ6VI4GdIgm58C2n577EMy7zQfnAcFlYmhZZJgTIZklF_z8Kwv9x59WEntsK-bqsCHIQkyiLG_CF5058GHY4Lc7xWzVpfE-ZgJwZwzTMj7r67EMbCZxF7cXfjL8mD7et2SPba5Vq9AnO5Fa81Jn8BLQPFfg
linkProvider Colorado Alliance of Research Libraries
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Tracer-based+assessments+of+hepatic+anaplerotic+and+TCA+cycle+flux%3A+practicality%2C+stoichiometry%2C+and+hidden+assumptions&rft.jtitle=American+journal+of+physiology%3A+endocrinology+and+metabolism&rft.au=Previs%2C+Stephen+F&rft.au=Kelley%2C+David+E&rft.date=2015-10-15&rft.pub=American+Physiological+Society&rft.issn=0193-1849&rft.eissn=1522-1555&rft.volume=309&rft.issue=8&rft.spage=E727&rft_id=info:doi/10.1152%2Fajpendo.00216.2015&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT&rft.externalDocID=3845696771
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=0193-1849&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=0193-1849&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=0193-1849&client=summon