Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-s74w7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-14T00:05:13.557Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nutritional regulation of glucokinase: a cross-species story

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2014

Stéphane Panserat*
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1067 Nutrition Metabolism Aquaculture (NUMEA), French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), Aquapôle, F-64310 Saint-Pée-sur-Nivelle, France
Nicole Rideau
Affiliation:
INRA, UR83 Recherches Avicoles, French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), F-37380 Nouzilly, France
Sergio Polakof
Affiliation:
INRA, Human Nutrition Unit (UNH), French National Institute for Agricultural Research (INRA), Clermont-Ferrand/Theix Research Centre, F-63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
*
* Corresponding author: Dr Stephane Panserat, fax +33 5 59 54 51 52, email panserat@st-pee.inra.fr
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The glucokinase (GK) enzyme (EC 2.7.1.1.) is essential for the use of dietary glucose because it is the first enzyme to phosphorylate glucose in excess in different key tissues such as the pancreas and liver. The objective of the present review is not to fully describe the biochemical characteristics and the genetics of this enzyme but to detail its nutritional regulation in different vertebrates from fish to human. Indeed, the present review will describe the existence of the GK enzyme in different animal species that have naturally different levels of carbohydrate in their diets. Thus, some studies have been performed to analyse the nutritional regulation of the GK enzyme in humans and rodents (having high levels of dietary carbohydrates in their diets), in the chicken (moderate level of carbohydrates in its diet) and rainbow trout (no carbohydrate intake in its diet). All these data illustrate the nutritional importance of the GK enzyme irrespective of feeding habits, even in animals known to poorly use dietary carbohydrates (carnivorous species).

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2014 
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Venn diagrams representing the putative presence of the four hexokinase (HK) isoforms (HK1, HK2, HK3, HK4) in fish and amphibians, reptiles and birds, and mammals. The represented data were obtained from the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) protein database. * Predicted sequences. † Predicted HK2. ‡ Predicted sequences except HK1. § Predicted sequences except HK2. [capsverbar] Predicted sequences except HK1 and HK2. ¶ Predicted sequences except HK4. ** Predicted sequence HK1. (A colour version of this figure can be found online at http://www.journals.cambridge.org/nrr).

Figure 1

Fig. 2 Representation of the number of publications concerning the enzyme glucokinase in three groups of vertebrates: fish (a), birds (b) and mammals (c). Amphibians and reptiles were omitted given the low number of publications ( < 5). For each group, the number of publications (>1) per species was included, as well as the total number of publication depending on nutritional and feeding habits. Data were obtained from Scopus (Copyright© 2013 Elsevier B.V.) using the key words ‘glucokinase’ and the searched species (i.e. ‘rat’ or ‘chicken’).

Figure 2

Table 1 Glucokinase activity in the liver of forty-two vertebrate species, including twenty-two mammals, seven birds, three reptiles, two amphibians and eight fish*

Figure 3

Fig. 3 Glucokinase protein multiple alignment between sequences of forty vertebrate species, including thirteen fish, two amphibians, one bird and nine mammals available at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) protein database. Multiple progressive alignment was done using COBALT (Constraint-based Multiple Protein Alignment Tool)(249). The picture was created using TreeViewX from the Nexus file obtained after COBALT analysis. Protein accession numbers are available upon request.

Figure 4

Table 2 Glucokinase activities in the liver of omnivorous and carnivorous piscine, avian and mammalian species submitted to several nutritional treatments*

Figure 5

Fig. 4 Glucokinase (GK) activity in the liver of rainbow trout (■), chicken (□) and rat (▒) submitted to different nutritional conditions, including fasting (24–72 h), regularly feeding, refeeding after fasting, response to a carbohydrate tolerance test (CHO tol test) and to diets rich in carbohydrates (high carbohydrate; HC), protein (high protein; HP) and fat (high fat; HF). The fed status was based on the regularly used diet for each species, with a proportion of carbohydrates of 6, 37 and 65 % for trout, chicken and rat, respectively. The HF diet contained 15 and 65 % of fat for trout and rat, and the HP diet contained 57, 55 and 90 % of protein for trout, chicken and rat. The tolerance test was made orally for chicken (saccharose 3 g/kg) and rat (glucose 3.6 g/kg), and intraperitoneally for trout (250 mg glucose/kg). The refeeding period was also dependent on the species: 1 week for trout and 24 h for rats. Data are presented as fold-induction when compared with the fasted group (value = 100). ND, no data found in the literature. For more details and references, see Table 2.

Figure 6

Fig. 5 Response of hepatic glucokinase (GK) activity (Act) and messenger RNA (mRNA) levels, and plasma glucose and insulin concentrations to a meal rich in carbohydrates in the rainbow trout (a), chicken (b) and rat (c). Data represent the fold-induction change of each parameter between 2 and 6 h after the meal when compared with the values in the fasted state or fed a carbohydrate-free diet (trout). The diet included 20, 37 and 67 % of carbohydrates for trout, chicken and rat, respectively. Trout were reared at 18°C. The values were obtained from Iritani et al. (rat)(44), Polakof et al. (fish)(243,244), Capilla et al. (fish)(211) and Rideau et al. (birds)(163). ■, 6 h (trout), 3 h (chicken), 2 h (rat); ▒, 24 h.