Skeletal muscle protein synthesis has generally been determined by the precursor:product labeling approach using labeled amino acids (e.g., [13C]leucine or [13C]-, [15N]-, or [2H]phenylalanine) as the tracers. Although reliable for determining rates of protein synthesis, this methodological approach requires experiments to be conducted in a controlled environment, and as a result, has limited our understanding of muscle protein renewal under free-living conditions over extended periods of time (i.e., integrative/cumulative assessments). An alternative tracer, 2H2O, has been successfully used to measure rates of muscle protein synthesis in mice, rats, fish and humans. Moreover, perturbations such as feeding and exercise have been included in these measurements without exclusion of common environmental and biological factors. In this review, we discuss the principle behind using 2H2O to measure muscle protein synthesis and highlight recent investigations that have examined the effects of feeding and exercise. The framework provided in this review should assist muscle biologists in designing experiments that advance our understanding of conditions in which anabolism is altered (e.g., exercise, feeding, growth, debilitating and metabolic pathologies).

Proteomics investigations typically yield information regarding static gene expression profiles. The central issues that limit the study of proteome dynamics include how to (i) administer a labeled amino acid in vivo, (ii) measure the isotopic labeling of a protein(s) (which may be low), and (iii) reliably interpret the precursor/product labeling relationships. In this study, we demonstrate the potential of quantifying proteome dynamics by coupling the administration of stable isotopes with mass spectrometric assays. Although the direct administration of a labeled amino acid(s) is typically used to measure protein synthesis, we explain the application of labeled water, comparing ²H₂O versus H₂¹⁸O for measuring albumin biosynthesis in vivo. This application emphasizes two distinct advantages of using labeled water over a labeled amino acid(s). First, in long term studies (e.g. days or weeks), it is not practical to continuously administer a labeled amino acid(s); however, in the presence of labeled water, organisms will generate labeled amino acids. Second, to calculate rates of protein synthesis in short term studies (e.g. hours), one must utilize a precursor/product labeling ratio; when using labeled water it is possible to reliably identify and easily measure the precursor labeling (i.e. water). We demonstrate that labeled water permits studies of protein synthesis (e.g. albumin synthesis in mice) during metabolic “steady-state” or “non-steady-state” conditions, i.e. integrating transitions between the fed and fasted state or during an acute perturbation (e.g. following a meal), respectively. We expect that the use of labeled water is applicable to wide scale investigations of proteome dynamics and can therein be used to obtain a functional image of gene expression in vivo.

Two groups recently used different tracer methods to quantify liver-specific flux rates. The studies had a similar goal, i.e., to characterize mitochondrial oxidative function. These efforts could have a direct impact on our ability to understand metabolic abnormalities that affect the pathophysiology of fatty liver and allow us to examine mechanisms surrounding potential therapeutic interventions. Briefly, one method couples the continuous infusion of [¹³C]acetate with direct real-time measurements of [¹³C]glutamate labeling in liver; the other method administers [¹³C]propionate, in combination with other tracers, and subsequently measures the¹³C labeling of plasma glucose and/or acetaminophen-glucuronide. It appears that a controversy has arisen, since the respective methods yielded different estimates of the anaplerotic/TCA flux ratio (V_ANA:V_TCA) in “control” subjects, i.e., the [¹³C]acetate- and [¹³C]propionate-derived V_ANA:V_TCAflux ratios appear to be ∼1.4 and ∼5, respectively. While the deep expertise in the respective groups makes it somewhat trivial for each to perform the tracer studies, the data interpretation is inherently difficult. The current perspective was undertaken to examine potential factors that could account for or contribute to the apparent differences. Attention was directed toward 1) matters of practicality, 2) issues surrounding stoichiometry, and 3) hidden assumptions. We believe that the [¹³C]acetate method has certain weaknesses that limit its utility; in contrast, the [¹³C]propionate method likely yields a more correct answer. We hope our discussion will help clarify the differences in the recent reports. Presumably this will be of interest to investigators who are considering tracer-based studies of liver metabolism.

Aberrant regulation of glucose production makes a critical contribution to the impaired glycemic control that is observed in type 2 diabetes. Although isotopic tracer methods have proven to be informative in quantifying the magnitude of such alterations, it is presumed that one must rely on venous access to administer glucose tracers which therein presents obstacles for the routine application of tracer methods in rodent models. Since intraperitoneal injections are readily used to deliver glucose challenges and/or dose potential therapeutics, we hypothesized that this route could also be used to administer a glucose tracer. The ability to then reliably estimate glucose flux would require attention toward setting a schedule for collecting samples and choosing a distribution volume. For example, glucose production can be calculated by multiplying the fractional turnover rate by the pool size. We have taken a step-wise approach to examine the potential of using an intraperitoneal tracer administration in rat and mouse models. First, we compared the kinetics of [U-¹³C]glucose following either an intravenous or an intraperitoneal injection. Second, we tested whether the intraperitoneal method could detect a pharmacological manipulation of glucose production. Finally, we contrasted a potential application of the intraperitoneal method against the glucose-insulin clamp. We conclude that it is possible to 1) quantify glucose production using an intraperitoneal injection of tracer and 2) derive a “glucose production index” by coupling estimates of basal glucose production with measurements of fasting insulin concentration; this yields a proxy for clamp-derived assessments of insulin sensitivity of endogenous production.