Apolipoprotein E (apo E) plays an important role in receptor mediated clearance of lipoprotein particles from plasma. Common genetic variation in apo E exists with three alleles coding for proteins called E2, E3, and E4. In in vitro receptor binding assays, E2 binds poorly, whereas E3 and E4 function normally. Recently, the apo E phenotype has been shown to have an effect on low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels with levels in subjects with E2 lower and E4 higher than E3. We have examined the effect of the apo E polymorphism on dietary fat clearance using the vitamin A-fat loading test, which specifically labels intestinally derived lipoproteins with retinyl palmitate (RP). 27 normal subjects were studied, 10 with E3/3, 9 with E3/2, 7 with E4/3, and 1 with E4/4. After a vitamin A-containing fatty meal, postprandial RP concentrations were measured in chylomicron (Sf greater than 1,000) and nonchylomicron (Sf less than 1,000) fractions for 14 h. Compared with E3/3 subjects, E3/2 subjects had a significantly higher nonchylomicron RP concentration (P less than 0.05) (peak heights and areas below the curves) indicating slower clearance and the E4/3, E4/4 group had a significantly lower nonchylomicron RP concentration (P less than 0.05) indicating faster clearance. The clearance in the latter group was twice that of E3/2 subjects (P less than 0.01). Thus, heterozygosity for the defective form of apo E, E2, delays, and the surprising presence of a functionally normal allele, E4, increases clearance. This apo E effect on exogenous fat clearance may explain the recently described effect of the apo E phenotypes on LDL cholesterol levels.
M S Weintraub, S Eisenberg, J L Breslow
Usage data is cumulative from February 2024 through February 2025.
Usage | JCI | PMC |
---|---|---|
Text version | 204 | 1 |
58 | 31 | |
Scanned page | 235 | 8 |
Citation downloads | 49 | 0 |
Totals | 546 | 40 |
Total Views | 586 |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.