Go to The Journal of Clinical Investigation
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Journal stats
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • By specialty
    • COVID-19
    • Cardiology
    • Immunology
    • Metabolism
    • Nephrology
    • Oncology
    • Pulmonology
    • All ...
  • Videos
  • Collections
    • In-Press Preview
    • Resource and Technical Advances
    • Clinical Research and Public Health
    • Research Letters
    • Editorials
    • Perspectives
    • Physician-Scientist Development
    • Reviews
    • Top read articles

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Specialties
  • In-Press Preview
  • Resource and Technical Advances
  • Clinical Research and Public Health
  • Research Letters
  • Editorials
  • Perspectives
  • Physician-Scientist Development
  • Reviews
  • Top read articles
  • About
  • Editors
  • Consulting Editors
  • For authors
  • Journal stats
  • Publication ethics
  • Publication alerts by email
  • Transfers
  • Advertising
  • Job board
  • Contact
Intestinal, but not hepatic, ChREBP is required for fructose tolerance
MiSung Kim, Inna I. Astapova, Sarah N. Flier, Sarah A. Hannou, Ludivine Doridot, Ashot Sargsyan, Henry H. Kou, Alan J. Fowler, Guosheng Liang, Mark A. Herman
MiSung Kim, Inna I. Astapova, Sarah N. Flier, Sarah A. Hannou, Ludivine Doridot, Ashot Sargsyan, Henry H. Kou, Alan J. Fowler, Guosheng Liang, Mark A. Herman
View: Text | PDF
Research Article Metabolism

Intestinal, but not hepatic, ChREBP is required for fructose tolerance

  • Text
  • PDF
Abstract

Increased sugar consumption is a risk factor for the metabolic syndrome including obesity, hypertriglyceridemia, insulin resistance, diabetes, and nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD). Carbohydrate responsive element–binding protein (ChREBP) is a transcription factor that responds to sugar consumption to regulate adaptive metabolic programs. Hepatic ChREBP is particularly responsive to fructose and global ChREBP-KO mice are intolerant to diets containing fructose. It has recently been suggested that ChREBP protects the liver from hepatotoxicity following high-fructose diets (HFrDs). We directly tested this hypothesis using tissue-specific ChREBP deletion. HFrD increased adiposity and impaired glucose homeostasis in control mice, responses that were prevented in liver-specific ChREBP-KO (LiChKO) mice. Moreover, LiChKO mice tolerated chronic HFrD without marked weight loss or hepatotoxicity. In contrast, intestine-specific ChREBP-KO (IChKO) mice rapidly lost weight after transition to HFrD, and this was associated with dilation of the small intestine and cecum, suggestive of malabsorption. These findings were associated with downregulation of the intestinal fructose transporter, Slc2a5, which is essential for fructose tolerance. Altogether, these results establish an essential role for intestinal, but not hepatic, ChREBP in fructose tolerance.

Authors

MiSung Kim, Inna I. Astapova, Sarah N. Flier, Sarah A. Hannou, Ludivine Doridot, Ashot Sargsyan, Henry H. Kou, Alan J. Fowler, Guosheng Liang, Mark A. Herman

×

Figure 7

ChREBP binds directly to Pklr and Slc2a5 in the jejunum.

Options: View larger image (or click on image) Download as PowerPoint
ChREBP binds directly to Pklr and Slc2a5 in the jejunum.
ChIP was perfor...
ChIP was performed from jejunal tissue with anti–carbohydrate responsive element–binding protein (anti-ChREBP) antibody or IgG control and qPCR was performed on immunoprecipitated chromatin with primers spanning (A) the E-box in the Pklr promoter and (B) the putative ChREBP binding site (CBS) in the Slc2a5 promoter, and in nonspecific genomic control regions (neg region) in proximity to both regions containing ChREBP response elements (n = 3/group). Data are presented as box-and-whisker plots where the line in the box indicates the median, the box extends from the 25th to 75th percentiles, and the whiskers indicate the minimal and maximal values. P values were obtained using 1-way ANOVA. *P < 0.05 compared with all others.

Copyright © 2026 American Society for Clinical Investigation
ISSN 2379-3708

Sign up for email alerts