Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T14:50:37.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Energy restriction and potential energy restriction mimetics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2015

Sibylle Nikolai*
Affiliation:
Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Kathrin Pallauf
Affiliation:
Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Patricia Huebbe
Affiliation:
Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
Gerald Rimbach
Affiliation:
Institute of Human Nutrition and Food Science, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany
*
*Corresponding author: Sibylle Nikolai, fax +49 431 880 2628, email nikolai@foodsci.uni-kiel.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Energy restriction (ER; also known as caloric restriction) is the only nutritional intervention that has repeatedly been shown to increase lifespan in model organisms and may delay ageing in humans. In the present review we discuss current scientific literature on ER and its molecular, metabolic and hormonal effects. Moreover, criteria for the classification of substances that might induce positive ER-like changes without having to reduce energy intake are summarised. Additionally, the putative ER mimetics (ERM) 2-deoxy-d-glucose, metformin, rapamycin, resveratrol, spermidine and lipoic acid and their suggested molecular targets are discussed. While there are reports on these ERM candidates that describe lifespan extension in model organisms, data on longevity-inducing effects in higher organisms such as mice remain controversial or are missing. Furthermore, some of these candidates produce detrimental side effects such as immunosuppression or lactic acidosis, or have not been tested for safety in long-term studies. Up to now, there are no known ERM that could be recommended without limitations for use in humans.

Information

Type
Review Article
Copyright
© The Authors 2015 
Figure 0

Fig. 1 Schematic overview of the suggested targets that energy restriction might address.

Figure 1

Fig. 2 Schematic overview of macroautophagy. A phagophore elongates, wraps around cytosolic components and closes to become an autophagosome. This structure fuses with endosomal vesicles to build late autophagic vesicles and finally fuses with a lysosome, thereby forming an autolysosome in which its inner membrane and its contents are degraded (adapted from Cantó & Auwerx(122)).

Figure 2

Table 1 ‘Side effects’ of energy restriction

Figure 3

Table 2 Potential energy restriction mimetic (ERM) candidate substances, their underlying molecular mechanisms, organisms in which the substances prolonged lifespan and limitations or adverse effects

Figure 4

Fig. 3 Chemical structure of 2-deoxy-d-glucose.

Figure 5

Fig. 4 Chemical structure of metformin.

Figure 6

Fig. 5 Chemical structure of rapamycin.

Figure 7

Fig. 6 Chemical structure of resveratrol.

Figure 8

Fig. 7 Chemical structure of spermidine.

Figure 9

Fig. 8 Chemical structure of R-α-lipoic acid.

Figure 10

Fig. 9 Schematic overview of the suggested molecular targets of the energy restriction mimetic candidate substances 2-deoxy-d-glucose (2DG), metformin (MET), rapamycin (RAP), resveratrol (RSV), spermidine (SPD) and lipoic acid (LA). 2DG inhibits the central process of glycolysis, thereby favouring the activities of AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK) and sirtuin (SIRT). MET increases AMPK activity, indirectly leading to increased autophagy and mitochondrial turnover. RAP inhibits mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) signalling, thereby favouring autophagy and inhibiting proliferative processes. In addition to its antioxidant capacity, RSV is thought to increase SIRT and AMPK activity. SPD might up-regulate the antioxidant response, enhance autophagy and decrease proliferation. LA might improve mitochondrial function, increase energy expenditure and reduce oxidative stress. ROS, reactive oxygen species.