Gastroparesis versus dyspepsia by intragastric meal distribution: new diagnostics and definitions ahead.

Gastroparesis often presents a challenge to the practicing gastroenterologist. Postprandial symptoms with nausea and vomiting may not only lead to nutritional and metabolic consequences, but also significant disruption of social activities that often center around food. The treatment options that affect gastric function are limited and often disappointing. The female predominance, the mostly idiopathic and idiosyncratic nature of the illness, often with some common psychiatric co-morbidity, parallels other functional disorders of the gastrointestinal tract. These parallels have provided the rationale for studies investigating alternative diagnostic features of the gastric emptying test as employed in the clinical setting. Hence, not only the regular cut-offs of 60% or 10% gastric retention of a meal at 2 and 4 h, but also a new concept, the intragastric meal distribution at time 0 (IMD0) is now introduced as a plausible diagnostic feature that should be more aligned with the patients' symptoms as they appear in close connection with the meal. Impaired gastric accommodation with absence of fundic relaxation followed by dumping of the meal into antrum is suggested to be diagnostic for functional dyspepsia and gastroparesis. The diagnostic cut-off is considered when more than 57% of the meal is distributed to the distal part of the stomach immediately on food intake. This new diagnostic feature of the gastric emptying profile lend support to better understanding of the patients' symptoms and provides a new basis for pharmacological treatment options in gastroparesis that may provide an improved quality of life in affected individuals.

Effects of heparin on the uptake of lipoprotein lipase in rat liver.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein lipase (LPL) is anchored at the vascular endothelium through interaction with heparan sulfate. It is not known how this enzyme is turned over but it has been suggested that it is slowly released into blood and then taken up and degraded in the liver. Heparin releases the enzyme into the circulating blood. Several lines of evidence indicate that this leads to accelerated flux of LPL to the liver and a temporary depletion of the enzyme in peripheral tissues. RESULTS: Rat livers were found to contain substantial amounts of LPL, most of which was catalytically inactive. After injection of heparin, LPL mass in liver increased for at least an hour. LPL activity also increased, but not in proportion to mass, indicating that the lipase soon lost its activity after being bound/taken up in the liver. To further study the uptake, bovine LPL was labeled with 125I and injected. Already two min after injection about 33 % of the injected lipase was in the liver where it initially located along sinusoids. With time the immunostaining shifted to the hepatocytes, became granular and then faded, indicating internalization and degradation. When heparin was injected before the lipase, the initial immunostaining along sinusoids was weaker, whereas staining over Kupffer cells was enhanced. When the lipase was converted to inactive before injection, the fraction taken up in the liver increased and the lipase located mainly to the Kupffer cells. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there are heparin-insensitive binding sites for LPL on both hepatocytes and Kupffer cells. The latter may be the same sites as those that mediate uptake of inactive LPL. The results support the hypothesis that turnover of endothelial LPL occurs in part by transport to and degradation in the liver, and that this transport is accelerated after injection of heparin.

Lipoprotein lipase in the kidney: activity varies widely among animal species.

Much evidence points to a relationship among kidney disease, lipoprotein metabolism, and the enzyme lipoprotein lipase (LPL), but there is little information on LPL in the kidney. The range of LPL activity in the kidney in five species differed by >500-fold. The highest activity was in mink, followed by mice, Chinese hamsters, and rats, whereas the activity was low in guinea pigs. In contrast, the ranges for LPL activities in heart and adipose tissue were less than six- and fourfold, respectively. The activity in the kidney (in mice) decreased by >50% on food deprivation for 6 h without corresponding changes in mRNA or mass. This decrease in LPL activity did not occur when transcription was blocked with actinomycin D. Immunostaining for kidney LPL in mice and mink indicated that the enzyme is produced in tubular epithelial cells. To explore the previously suggested possibility that the negatively charged glomerular filter picks up LPL from the blood, bovine LPL was injected into rats and mice. This resulted in decoration of the glomerular capillary network with LPL. This study shows that in some species LPL is produced in the kidney and is subject to nutritional regulation by a posttranscriptional mechanism. In addition, LPL can be picked up from blood in the glomerulus.