↓ Skip to main content

Integration between Glycolysis and Glutamate-Glutamine Cycle Flux May Explain Preferential Glycolytic Increase during Brain Activation, Requiring Glutamate

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
59 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
91 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Integration between Glycolysis and Glutamate-Glutamine Cycle Flux May Explain Preferential Glycolytic Increase during Brain Activation, Requiring Glutamate
Published in
Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, August 2017
DOI 10.3389/fnint.2017.00018
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leif Hertz, Ye Chen

Abstract

The 1988 observation by Fox et al. (1988) that brief intense brain activation increases glycolysis (pyruvate formation from glucose) much more than oxidative metabolism has been abundantly confirmed. Specifically glycolytic increase was unexpected because the amount of ATP it generates is much smaller than that formed by subsequent oxidative metabolism of pyruvate. The present article shows that preferential glycolysis can be explained by metabolic processes associated with activation of the glutamate-glutamine cycle. The flux in this cycle, which is essential for production of transmitter glutamate and GABA, equals 75% of brain glucose utilization and each turn is associated with utilization of ~1 glucose molecule. About one half of the association between cycle flux and glucose metabolism occurs during neuronal conversion of glutamine to glutamate in a process similar to the malate-aspartate shuttle (MAS) except that glutamate is supplied from glutamine, not formed from α-ketoglutarate (αKG) as during operation of conventional MAS. Regular MAS function is triggered by one oxidative process in the cytosol during glycolysis causing NAD(+) reduction to NADH. Since NADH cannot cross the mitochondrial membrane (MEM) for oxidation NAD(+) is re-generated by conversion of cytosolic oxaloacetate (OAA) to malate, which enters the mitochondria for oxidation and in a cyclic process regenerates cytosolic OAA. Therefore MAS as well as the "pseudo-MAS" necessary for neuronal glutamate formation can only operate together with cytosolic reduction of NAD(+) to NADH. The major process causing NAD(+) reduction is glycolysis which therefore also must occur during neuronal conversion of glutamine to glutamate and may energize vesicular glutamate uptake which preferentially uses glycolytically derived energy. Another major contributor to the association between glutamate-glutamine cycle and glucose utilization is the need for astrocytic pyruvate to generate glutamate. Although some oxidative metabolism occurs during glutamate formation it is only one half of that during normal tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle function. Glutamate's receptor stimulation leads to potassium ion (K(+)) release and astrocytic uptake, preferentially fueled by glycolysis and followed by release and neuronal re-accumulation. The activation-induced preferential glycolysis diminishes with continued activation and is followed by an increased ratio between oxidative metabolism and glycolysis, reflecting oxidation of generated glutamate and accumulated lactate.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 91 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 91 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 21%
Researcher 16 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 5%
Other 16 18%
Unknown 22 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 24 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 17 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 26 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,034,483
of 24,309,087 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#501
of 888 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#174,293
of 320,330 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience
#9
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,309,087 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 888 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 320,330 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.