Go to JCI Insight
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Gastroenterology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Neuroscience
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • Vascular biology
    • All ...
  • Videos
    • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
    • Video Abstracts
  • Reviews
    • View all reviews ...
    • Clinical innovation and scientific progress in GLP-1 medicine (Nov 2025)
    • Pancreatic Cancer (Jul 2025)
    • Complement Biology and Therapeutics (May 2025)
    • Evolving insights into MASLD and MASH pathogenesis and treatment (Apr 2025)
    • Microbiome in Health and Disease (Feb 2025)
    • Substance Use Disorders (Oct 2024)
    • Clonal Hematopoiesis (Oct 2024)
    • View all review series ...
  • Viewpoint
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Letters to the Editor
    • Editorials
    • Commentaries
    • Editor's notes
    • Reviews
    • Viewpoints
    • 100th anniversary
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • Reviews
  • Review series
  • Conversations with Giants in Medicine
  • Video Abstracts
  • In-Press Preview
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Letters to the Editor
  • Editorials
  • Commentaries
  • Editor's notes
  • Reviews
  • Viewpoints
  • 100th anniversary
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact

Submit a comment

Comparison of glucosylated low density lipoprotein with methylated or cyclohexanedione-treated low density lipoprotein in the measurement of receptor-independent low density lipoprotein catabolism.
U P Steinbrecher, J L Witztum, Y A Kesaniemi, R L Elam
U P Steinbrecher, J L Witztum, Y A Kesaniemi, R L Elam
View: Text | PDF
Research Article

Comparison of glucosylated low density lipoprotein with methylated or cyclohexanedione-treated low density lipoprotein in the measurement of receptor-independent low density lipoprotein catabolism.

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

We previously showed that glucosylation of lysine residues of low density lipoproteins (LDL) blocks high-affinity degradation by cultured human fibroblasts, and markedly slows LDL turnover in guinea pigs. The present studies were done to evaluate glucosylated (GLC) LDL as a tracer of receptor-independent LDL catabolism, and to compare it with two other modified LDL, methylated (MET) LDL, and cyclohexanedione (CHD)-treated LDL, which have been used previously for this purpose. Glucosylation of LDL did not affect receptor-independent degradation in vivo, as the turnover of GLC-LDL and native LDL were similar in the LDL receptor-deficient, Watanabe heritable hyperlipidemic rabbit. Each modified radiolabeled LDL preparation was injected into eight guinea pigs, and fractional catabolic rates (FCR) determined. The FCR of GLC-LDL (0.024 +/- 0.005 h-1; SD) was similar to that of MET-LDL (0.023 +/- 0.006 h-1), and approximately 22% of that of native LDL (0.105 +/- 0.02 h-1). The FCR of CHD-LDL was greater than that of the other modified LDL, and it varied depending on how soon after preparation the CHD-LDL was injected: when used within 2 h of preparation, the mean FCR was 0.044 +/- 0.007 h-1 (n = 4); when used after overnight dialysis at 4 degrees C, the mean FCR was 0.082 +/- 0.03 h-1 (n = 4). This suggests that CHD-LDL overestimates the amount of LDL degraded by receptor-independent pathways, perhaps because the CHD modification is spontaneously reversible. The present studies indicate that GLC-LDL is a useful tracer of receptor-independent LDL catabolism in animals.

Authors

U P Steinbrecher, J L Witztum, Y A Kesaniemi, R L Elam

×

Guidelines

The Editorial Board will only consider comments that are deemed relevant and of interest to readers. The Journal will not post data that have not been subjected to peer review; or a comment that is essentially a reiteration of another comment.

  • Comments appear on the Journal’s website and are linked from the original article’s web page.
  • Authors are notified by email if their comments are posted.
  • The Journal reserves the right to edit comments for length and clarity.
  • No appeals will be considered.
  • Comments are not indexed in PubMed.

Specific requirements

  • Maximum length, 400 words
  • Entered as plain text or HTML
  • Author’s name and email address, to be posted with the comment
  • Declaration of all potential conflicts of interest (even if these are not ultimately posted); see the Journal’s conflict-of-interest policy
  • Comments may not include figures
This field is required
This field is required
This field is required
This field is required
This field is required
This field is required

Copyright © 2025 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN: 0021-9738 (print), 1558-8238 (online)

Sign up for email alerts