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...
Saved in:
Published in | American journal of physiology: endocrinology and metabolism Vol. 309; no. 8; pp. E727 - E735 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
United States
American Physiological Society
15.10.2015
|
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get 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 |