Cardiac knockout of pfkfb2 impairs glucose homeostasis and mitochondrial function, suggesting critical metabolic roles.
Background The heart’s constant energy demands make metabolic flexibility critical to its function as nutrient availability varies. The enzyme phosphofructokinase‐2/fructose 2,6‐bisphosphatase (PFKFB2) contributes to this flexibility by acting as a positive or negative regulator of cardiac glycolysis. We have previously shown that PFKFB2 is degraded in the diabetic heart and that a cardiac‐specific PFKFB2 knockout (cKO) impacts ancillary glucose pathways and mitochondrial substrate preference. Therefore, defining PFKFB2’s role in mitochondrial metabolic flexibility is paramount to understanding both metabolic homeostasis and metabolic syndromes. Further, it is unknown how PFKFB2 loss impacts the heart’s response to acute stress. Here, we examined how cardiac mitochondrial flexibility and the posttranslational modification O‐GlcNAcylation are affected in cKO mice in response to fasting or pharmacologic stimulation. Methods cKO and litter‐matched controls were euthanized in the fed or fasted (12 hours) states, with or without a 20‐minute stimulant stress of caffeine and epinephrine. Mitochondrial respiration, metabolomics, and changes to systemic glucose homeostasis were evaluated. Results cKO mice had moderate impairment in mitochondrial metabolic flexibility, affecting downstream glucose oxidation, respiration, and carnitine palmitoyl transferase 1 activity. O‐GlcNAcylation, a product of ancillary glucose metabolism, was upregulated in cKO hearts in the fed state, but this was ameliorated in the fasted state. Furthermore, metabolic remodeling in response to PFKFB2 loss was sufficient to impact circulating glucose in fasted and stressed states. Conclusions PFKFB2 is essential for fed‐to‐fasted changes in cardiac metabolism and plays an important regulatory role in protein O‐GlcNAcylation. Its loss also affects systemic glucose homeostasis under stressed conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Harold et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: