1. Anath Shalev  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States

Fructose is a simple sugar that is found in many fruits and plants. Its strong sweetness and minimal effect on blood glucose levels make fructose a more attractive sweetener than other naturally occurring sugars. As a result, high-fructose corn syrup is often added to a variety of foods and drinks to make them sweeter (Figure 1). This has lead to people consuming much more fructose than in previous decades, especially in the United States and other westernized countries (Cox, 2002; Goran et al., 2013). Along with this trend, more and more evidence suggests that consuming too much fructose could detrimentally affect our metabolism. In particular, excess fructose consumption has been linked to an increased risk of insulin resistance, obesity, type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (Elliott et al., 2002; Kolderup and Svihus, 2015). However, it remains controversial whether the fructose itself actually causes these metabolic problems, and different studies have reported conflicting results (Campos and Tappy, 2016).

Fructose in food and drink.

High fructose corn syrup – which is synthetically manufactured from broken down cornstarch – is added to many soft drinks to increase their sweetness, palatability and taste.

Image credit: “high fructose water color” by Laura Taylor (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

After we eat or drink fructose it is transported through the cells that line our small intestine with the help of sugar-transporting proteins called GLUT5 and GLUT2 (Gould et al., 1991; Burant et al., 1992). Once in the bloodstream, it is taken to the liver via the hepatic portal vein. The liver then removes some of the fructose in the blood; this ensures that fructose levels in the blood remain at least 10 times lower than glucose levels (Douard and Ferraris, 2008). However, the liver also converts fructose into a number of metabolites that can be used to increase stores of glucose and fat, and this might contribute to the detrimental effects on metabolism that are linked to eating fructose. The uptake of fructose by the small intestine is limited to control how much fructose gets into the blood and liver, but relatively little is known about this process.

Now, in eLife, Richard Lee and co-workers – including James Dotimas and Austin Lee as joint first authors – report that a protein referred to as TXNIP (which is short for thioredoxin-interacting protein) regulates fructose uptake via a previously unrecognized interaction with GLUT5 and GLUT2 (Dotimas et al., 2016). Normally, TXNIP acts to regulate the cell’s redox state. However, too much TXNIP can detrimentally affect how the body manages its glucose levels (referred to as glucose homeostasis) in a number of ways (Minn et al., 2005; Parikh et al., 2007; Chutkow et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2013).

The gene that encodes TXNIP is itself activated by sugars like glucose and fructose (Minn et al., 2005; Stoltzman et al., 2008; Cha-Molstad et al., 2009), and Dotimas et al. – who are based at Harvard and the Massachusetts General Hospital – confirmed that fructose promotes the production of TXNIP in the small intestine. They also went on to show that fructose actually promotes the interactions between TXNIP and GLUT5 and GLUT2 in the small intestine, and that TXNIP in turn increases fructose uptake.

By using mutant mice and radioactively labeled fructose, Dotimas et al. could show that mice fed fructose via a tube ended up with high levels of fructose in their blood and tissues, but only if they had a working copy of the gene for TXNIP. To confirm that TXNIP was making the small intestine absorb more fructose, they then performed a similar experiment but injected a solution of fructose directly into the bloodstream rather than feeding the mice via a tube. As expected, when the small intestine was bypassed like this, all the mice showed the same elevated levels of fructose in their tissues regardless of whether they had TXNIP or not (Dotimas et al., 2016).

Previous studies have shown that diabetes leads to increased production of TXNIP and that deleting the gene for TXNIP (or otherwise inhibiting the protein) can prevent diabetes, improve glucose tolerance and have a beneficial effect on glucose metabolism (Chen et al., 2008). Dotimas et al. found that mice without the gene for TXNIP were also protected against the detrimental effects of a high fructose diet on metabolism.

The researchers also found that triggering diabetes in mice (by killing their insulin-producing cells with a toxin called streptozotocin) led to more TXNIP being produced in the small intestine. This in turn resulted in more fructose being absorbed by the small intestine. Since deleting the gene for TXNIP diminished this effect, they propose that diabetes increases fructose absorption and that TXNIP is involved in this process. Indeed, the data show that TXNIP links fructose absorption to both glucose homeostasis and diabetes.

Though Dotimas et al. clearly demonstrate a new protein-protein interaction between TXNIP and the fructose transporters; it remains to be shown that this interaction actually causes the increase in fructose absorption. If indeed it does, the next challenge will be to work out exactly how this happens. Other challenges include determining how diabetes affects the levels of fructose circulating in the blood in humans, and to tease apart whether any changes in fructose levels are caused by the diabetes itself or by differences in diet.

In addition to supporting the notion that too much fructose in the diet is bad for metabolic control, at least in mice, the work of Lee, Dotimas, Lee and co-workers might also help explain why different studies have come to different conclusions and suggests that the context in which fructose is consumed is important. Just by itself – that is, without glucose being present and in the absence of diabetes or elevated TXNIP levels – very little fructose might be absorbed. In contrast, high levels of glucose will lead to an increase in TXNIP levels, which will promote the absorption of fructose and exacerbate existing problems with metabolism. In any case, the latest work is consistent with the overall concept that inhibiting TXNIP is beneficial for metabolism, and reveals yet another reason why this might be. Another interesting future research direction would be to ask how the gut microbiome might affect the way TXNIP regulates fructose uptake and any resulting metabolic sequelae or complications.

References

    1. Burant CF
    2. Takeda J
    3. Brot-Laroche E
    4. Bell GI
    5. Davidson NO
    (1992)
    Fructose transporter in human spermatozoa and small intestine is GLUT5
    Journal of Biological Chemistry 267:14523–14526.
    1. Elliott SS
    2. Keim NL
    3. Stern JS
    4. Teff K
    5. Havel PJ
    (2002)
    Fructose, weight gain, and the insulin resistance syndrome
     American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 76:911–922.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Anath Shalev

    Comprehensive Diabetes Center, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, United States
    For correspondence
    Shalev@uab.edu
    Competing interests
    The author declares that no competing interests exist.

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: October 11, 2016 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2016, Shalev

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,591
    Page views
  • 202
    Downloads
  • 40
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Anath Shalev
(2016)
Metabolism: Keeping tabs on fructose
eLife 5:e21263.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.21263

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    Layla Drwesh et al.
    Research Article Updated

    Signal-anchored (SA) proteins are anchored into the mitochondrial outer membrane (OM) via a single transmembrane segment at their N-terminus while the bulk of the proteins is facing the cytosol. These proteins are encoded by nuclear DNA, translated on cytosolic ribosomes, and are then targeted to the organelle and inserted into its OM by import factors. Recently, research on the insertion mechanisms of these proteins into the mitochondrial OM have gained a lot of attention. In contrast, the early cytosolic steps of their biogenesis are unresolved. Using various proteins from this category and a broad set of in vivo, in organello, and in vitro assays, we reconstituted the early steps of their biogenesis. We identified a subset of molecular (co)chaperones that interact with newly synthesized SA proteins, namely, Hsp70 and Hsp90 chaperones and co-chaperones from the Hsp40 family like Ydj1 and Sis1. These interactions were mediated by the hydrophobic transmembrane segments of the SA proteins. We further demonstrate that interfering with these interactions inhibits the biogenesis of SA proteins to a various extent. Finally, we could demonstrate direct interaction of peptides corresponding to the transmembrane segments of SA proteins with the (co)chaperones and reconstitute in vitro the transfer of such peptides from the Hsp70 chaperone to the mitochondrial Tom70 receptor. Collectively, this study unravels an array of cytosolic chaperones and mitochondrial import factors that facilitates the targeting and membrane integration of mitochondrial SA proteins.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Rajesh Sharma et al.
    Research Article

    Cyclic GMP-dependent protein kinases (PKGs) are key mediators of the nitric oxide/cGMP signaling pathway that regulates biological functions as diverse as smooth muscle contraction, cardiac function, and axon guidance. Understanding how cGMP differentially triggers mammalian PKG isoforms could lead to new therapeutics that inhibit or activate PKGs, complementing drugs that target nitric oxide synthases and cyclic nucleotide phosphodiesterases in this signaling axis. Alternate splicing of PRKG1 transcripts confers distinct leucine zippers, linkers, and auto-inhibitory pseudo-substrate sequences to PKG Iα and Iβ that result in isoform-specific activation properties, but the mechanism of enzyme auto-inhibition and its alleviation by cGMP is not well understood. Here we present a crystal structure of PKG Iβ in which the auto-inhibitory sequence and the cyclic nucleotide binding domains are bound to the catalytic domain, providing a snapshot of the auto-inhibited state. Specific contacts between the PKG Iβ auto-inhibitory sequence and the enzyme active site help explain isoform-specific activation constants and the effects of phosphorylation in the linker. We also present a crystal structure of a PKG I cyclic nucleotide binding domain with an activating mutation linked to Thoracic Aortic Aneurysms and Dissections. Similarity of this structure to wild type cGMP-bound domains and differences with the auto-inhibited enzyme provide a mechanistic basis for constitutive activation. We show that PKG Iβ auto-inhibition is mediated by contacts within each monomer of the native full-length dimeric protein, and using the available structural and biochemical data we develop a model for the regulation and cooperative activation of PKGs.