1979European Journal of Clinical InvestigationRequires access

Alpha‐adrenergic antilipolytic effect of adrenaline in human fat cells of the thigh: comparison with adrenaline responsiveness of different fat deposits

Max Lafontan, L Dang-Tran, M Berlan

Open publisher page 136 citations

Abstract

Abstract. The present results show that isolated fat cells from the subcutaneous adipose tissue of the lateral part of the thigh exhibit resistance to adrenaline. However, inability of adrenaline to induce lipolysis is not linked to a β‐receptor defect since a β‐adrenoceptor‐stimulating agent (isoproterenol) exerts a clear lipid mobilizing effect. The blocking of α‐adrenoceptors by phentolamine (an α‐adrenoblocking drug) unmasks the strong lipolytic effect of adrenaline. Moreover, our investigation demonstrates the occurrence of an inhibiting effect of adrenaline on theophylline‐induced lipolysis. This inhibitory effect is suppressed by phentolamine and strengthened by propranolol (β‐adrenoblocking drug). Thus it seems that one of the important facts able to explain adrenaline resistance of the adipocytes from the subcutaneous adipose tissue of the thigh could be increased alpha‐adrenergic responsiveness initiated by mixed agonists such as adrenaline or noradrenaline. Moreover, our data demonstrate that the differences in the lipolytic responses to adrenaline between isolated fat cells taken from different sites could be linked to a variable α‐adrenergic‐inhibiting effect rather than a modified β‐adrenergic effect. In conclusion, the balance between the two receptor site activities could be different according to the anatomical localization of the fat deposits, thus explaining the differences in adrenaline responsiveness reported in this paper.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Abstract. The present results show that isolated fat cells from the subcutaneous adipose tissue of the lateral part of the thigh exhibit resistance to adrenaline. However, inability of adrenaline to induce lipolysis is not linked to a β‐receptor defect since a β‐adrenoceptor‐stimulating agent (isoproterenol) exerts a clear lipid mobilizing effect. The blocking of α‐adrenoceptors by phentolamine (an α‐adrenoblocking drug) unmasks the strong lipolytic effect of adrenaline. Moreover, our investigation demonstrates the occurrence of an inhibiting effect of adrenaline on theophylline‐induced lipolysis. This inhibitory effect is suppressed by phentolamine and strengthened by propranolol (β‐adrenoblocking drug). Thus it seems that one of the important facts able to explain adrenaline resistance of the adipocytes from the subcutaneous adipose tissue of the thigh could be increased alpha‐adrenergic responsiveness initiated by mixed agonists such as adrenaline or noradrenaline. Moreover, our data demonstrate that the differences in the lipolytic responses to adrenaline between isolated fat cells taken from different sites could be linked to a variable α‐adrenergic‐inhibiting effect rather than a modified β‐adrenergic effect. In conclusion, the balance between the two receptor site activities could be different according to the anatomical localization of the fat deposits, thus explaining the differences in adrenaline responsiveness reported in this paper.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 136 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Abstract. The present results show that isolated fat cells from the subcutaneous adipose tissue of the lateral part of the thigh exhibit resistance to adrenaline. However, inability of adrenaline to induce lipolysis is not linked to a β‐receptor defect since a β‐adrenoceptor‐stimulating agent (isoproterenol) exerts a clear lipid mobilizing effect. The blocking of α‐adrenoceptors by phentolamine (an α‐adrenoblocking drug) unmasks the strong lipolytic effect of adrenaline. Moreover, our investigation demonstrates the occurrence of an inhibiting effect of adrenaline on theophylline‐induced lipolysis. This inhibitory effect is suppressed by phentolamine and strengthened by propranolol (β‐adrenoblocking drug). Thus it seems that one of the important facts able to explain adrenaline resistance of the adipocytes from the subcutaneous adipose tissue of the thigh could be increased alpha‐adrenergic responsiveness initiated by mixed agonists such as adrenaline or noradrenaline. Moreover, our data demonstrate that the differences in the lipolytic responses to adrenaline between isolated fat cells taken from different sites could be linked to a variable α‐adrenergic‐inhibiting effect rather than a modified β‐adrenergic effect. In conclusion, the balance between the two receptor site activities could be different according to the anatomical localization of the fat deposits, thus explaining the differences in adrenaline responsiveness reported in this paper.

Key concepts: Phentolamine, Lipolysis, Endocrinology, Internal medicine, Propranolol, Adipose tissue, Epinephrine, Adrenergic

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Alpha‐adrenergic antilipolytic effect of adrenaline in human fat cells of the thigh: comparison with adrenaline responsiveness of different fat deposits — Research Paper | ScholarLens