To the extent possible under law, AOP-Wiki has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to KER:883

Relationship: 883

Title

The title of the KER should clearly define the two KEs being considered and the sequential relationship between them (i.e., which is upstream and which is downstream). Consequently all KER titles take the form “upstream KE leads to downstream KE”.  More help

Decreased, Ketogenesis (production of ketone bodies) leads to Not Increased, Circulating Ketone Bodies

Upstream event
Upstream event in the Key Event Relationship. On the KER page, clicking on the Event name under Upstream Relationship will bring the user to that individual KE page. More help
Downstream event
Downstream event in the Key Event Relationship. On the KER page, clicking on the Event name under Upstream Relationship will bring the user to that individual KE page. More help

Key Event Relationship Overview

The utility of AOPs for regulatory application is defined, to a large extent, by the confidence and precision with which they facilitate extrapolation of data measured at low levels of biological organisation to predicted outcomes at higher levels of organisation and the extent to which they can link biological effect measurements to their specific causes. Within the AOP framework, the predictive relationships that facilitate extrapolation are represented by the KERs. Consequently, the overall WoE for an AOP is a reflection in part, of the level of confidence in the underlying series of KERs it encompasses. Therefore, describing the KERs in an AOP involves assembling and organising the types of information and evidence that defines the scientific basis for inferring the probable change in, or state of, a downstream KE from the known or measured state of an upstream KE. More help

AOPs Referencing Relationship

This table is automatically generated upon addition of a KER to an AOP. All of the AOPs that are linked to this KER will automatically be listed in this subsection. Clicking on the name of the AOP in the table will bring you to the individual page for that AOP. More help
AOP Name Adjacency Weight of Evidence Quantitative Understanding Point of Contact Author Status OECD Status
Antagonist binding to PPARα leading to body-weight loss adjacent High Moderate Kurt A. Gust (send email) Open for citation & comment WPHA/WNT Endorsed

Taxonomic Applicability

Select one or more structured terms that help to define the biological applicability domain of the KER. In general, this will be dictated by the more restrictive of the two KEs being linked together by the KER. Authors can indicate the relevant taxa for this KER in this subsection. The process is similar to what is described for KEs (see pages 30-31 and 37-38 of User Handbook) More help
Term Scientific Term Evidence Link
human Homo sapiens Moderate NCBI

Sex Applicability

Authors can indicate the relevant sex for this KER in this subsection. The process is similar to what is described for KEs (see pages 31-32 of the User Handbook). More help
Sex Evidence
Male Moderate
Female Moderate

Life Stage Applicability

Authors can indicate the relevant life stage for this KER in this subsection. The process is similar to what is described for KEs (see pages 31-32 of User Handbook). More help
Term Evidence
Adults Moderate

Key Event Relationship Description

Provide a brief, descriptive summation of the KER. While the title itself is fairly descriptive, this section can provide details that aren’t inherent in the description of the KEs themselves (see page 39 of the User Handbook). This description section can be viewed as providing the increased specificity in the nature of upstream perturbation (KEupstream) that leads to a particular downstream perturbation (KEdownstream), while allowing the KE descriptions to remain generalised so they can be linked to different AOPs. The description is also intended to provide a concise overview for readers who may want a brief summation, without needing to read through the detailed support for the relationship (covered below). Careful attention should be taken to avoid reference to other KEs that are not part of this KER, other KERs or other AOPs. This will ensure that the KER is modular and can be used by other AOPs. More help

The KE, “ketogenesis (production of ketone bodies)” is critical to supporting general systemic energy homeostasis in fasting events (Cahill 2006, Evans et al 2004, Sengupta et al 2010).  Interference with ketogenesis, for example by PPARα inhibition, has been demonstrated to inhibit β-hydroxybutyrate production (measured in serum) during fasting events in mice (Badman et al 2007, Potthoff 2009, Sengupta et al 2010).  The Badman et al (2007) study indicated that metabolism of fatty acid substrates (measured as liver triglycerides) that would otherwise contribute to β-hydroxybutyrate production was additionally inhibited under PPARα knockout.  

In a fasting state, humans transition from the use of exogenous glucose to glucose derived from glycogen within 4 hours with a steadily increasing proportion of glucose usage that is derived from gluconeogenesis up to 2 days (Cahill 2006).  Beyond 2 days of fasting, ketone body production (β-hydroxybutyrate) increasingly supports the energy demands of the brain (Cahill 2006).

Physiological studies of the progression of human starvation have identified that the preferred metabolic fuel is glucose in the fed state and progressing through two days of fasting, afterward ketone bodies become increasingly important for meeting energy demands (Cahill 2006, Owen et al 2005).  Substrates derived from carbohydrates, fats and protein can contribute to gluconeogenesis (Cahill 2006, Gerich et al 2001) whereas substrates derived from fatty acids are the primary contributors to ketogenesis (Desvergne and Wahli 1999).  Mobilization of fatty acids as a metabolic fuel source increase dramatically during fasting to support both gluconeogenesis and ketogenesis (Evans et al 2004).   Cahill (2006) and colleagues have demonstrated the importance of ketone body production, especially β-hydroxybutyrate, for maintaining energy homeostasis during starvation.  β-hydroxybutyrate serves as an alternative substrate to glucose for providing energy to the brain in the starvation state, providing ATP at higher efficiency relative to the glucose substrate (Cahill 2006).  Interference with ketogenesis, for example by PPARα inhibition, has been demonstrated to inhibit β-hydroxybutyrate production (measured in serum) during fasting events in mice (Badman et al 2007, Potthoff 2009, Sengupta et al 2010)  and cause hypoketonemia (Muoio et al 2002).  The Badman et al (2007) study indicated that metabolism of fatty acid substrates (measured as liver triglycerides) that would otherwise contribute to β-hydroxybutyrate production was inhibited under PPARα knockout.   Increased concentrations of circulating ketone bodies is indicative of potential metabolic fuel deficits in fasting animals (Cahill 2006), and a lack of increase in circulating ketone bodies during fasting, especially in conjunction with elevated blood triglycerides, indicates impaired ketogenesis and potentially impaired bioenergetic potential.

A potential implication of decreased ketone body production is stress on cardiac function given that energy-stressed heart tissue shifts reliance away from fatty acids toward ketone bodies (β-hydroxybutyrate) to fuel production of the ATP needed to maintain the heart’s mechanical function (Aubert et al 2016).  Related to this observation, PPARα-knockout mice reached exhaustion sooner than wild types in an exercise challenge which corresponded with significantly decreased β-hydroxybutyrate in serum indicating hypoketonemia in PPARα-knockout mice versus wild types (Muoio et al 2002).  Overall, diminished PPARα function, especially in combination with fasting /diminished nutrition and/or excessive exercise may contribute to impaired maintenance on systemic energy budget.

Evidence Supporting this KER

Assembly and description of the scientific evidence supporting KERs in an AOP is an important step in the AOP development process that sets the stage for overall assessment of the AOP (see pages 49-56 of the User Handbook). To do this, biological plausibility, empirical support, and the current quantitative understanding of the KER are evaluated with regard to the predictive relationships/associations between defined pairs of KEs as a basis for considering WoE (page 55 of User Handbook). In addition, uncertainties and inconsistencies are considered. More help

As described in the section above, the KER for the KE, “decreased ketogenesis (production of ketone bodies)” -> the KE, “no increase of circulating ketone bodies” is well supported and received a “strong” weight of evidence score given that inhibition of decreased ketogenesis was demonstrated to reduce circulating ketone body concentrations under fasting conditions, but not relative to fed animals (Sengupta et al. 2010, Badman et al. 2007).  The quantitative understanding was scored as “moderate” given that, although there is strong literature support of the quantitative relationships between the KE, “ketogenesis (production of ketone bodies)” and the KE, “no increase of circulating ketone bodies”  under starvation events, there is less knowledge available regarding the specific inhibition of the PPARalpha signaling pathway as the source of “starvation” or depletion of available fatty acids as the starting stock for ketogenesis.

Biological Plausibility
Define, in free text, the biological rationale for a connection between KEupstream and KEdownstream. What are the structural or functional relationships between the KEs? For example, there is a functional relationship between an enzyme’s activity and the product of a reaction it catalyses. Supporting references should be included. However, it is recognised that there may be cases where the biological relationship between two KEs is very well established, to the extent that it is widely accepted and consistently supported by so much literature that it is unnecessary and impractical to cite the relevant primary literature. Citation of review articles or other secondary sources, like text books, may be reasonable in such cases. The primary intent is to provide scientifically credible support for the structural and/or functional relationship between the pair of KEs if one is known. The description of biological plausibility can also incorporate additional mechanistic details that help inform the relationship between KEs, this is useful when it is not practical/pragmatic to represent these details as separate KEs due to the difficulty or relative infrequency with which it is likely to be measured (see page 40 of the User Handbook for further information).   More help

Biological plausibility of this KER is strong given the supporting relationships cited in the literature described in the previous bullets above.

Uncertainties and Inconsistencies
In addition to outlining the evidence supporting a particular linkage, it is also important to identify inconsistencies or uncertainties in the relationship. Additionally, while there are expected patterns of concordance that support a causal linkage between the KEs in the pair, it is also helpful to identify experimental details that may explain apparent deviations from the expected patterns of concordance. Identification of uncertainties and inconsistencies contribute to evaluation of the overall WoE supporting the AOPs that contain a given KER and to the identification of research gaps that warrant investigation (seep pages 41-42 of the User Handbook).Given that AOPs are intended to support regulatory applications, AOP developers should focus on those inconsistencies or gaps that would have a direct bearing or impact on the confidence in the KER and its use as a basis for inference or extrapolation in a regulatory setting. Uncertainties that may be of academic interest but would have little impact on regulatory application don’t need to be described. In general, this section details evidence that may raise questions regarding the overall validity and predictive utility of the KER (including consideration of both biological plausibility and empirical support). It also contributes along with several other elements to the overall evaluation of the WoE for the KER (see Section 4 of the User Handbook).  More help

The data is fairly robust. Additional specific systems level investigations with PPARalpha signaling knockouts would be useful for understanding non-starvation related ketogenic processes.

Response-response Relationship
This subsection should be used to define sources of data that define the response-response relationships between the KEs. In particular, information regarding the general form of the relationship (e.g., linear, exponential, sigmoidal, threshold, etc.) should be captured if possible. If there are specific mathematical functions or computational models relevant to the KER in question that have been defined, those should also be cited and/or described where possible, along with information concerning the approximate range of certainty with which the state of the KEdownstream can be predicted based on the measured state of the KEupstream (i.e., can it be predicted within a factor of two, or within three orders of magnitude?). For example, a regression equation may reasonably describe the response-response relationship between the two KERs, but that relationship may have only been validated/tested in a single species under steady state exposure conditions. Those types of details would be useful to capture.  More help

Unknown.

Time-scale
This sub-section should be used to provide information regarding the approximate time-scale of the changes in KEdownstream relative to changes in KEupstream (i.e., do effects on KEdownstream lag those on KEupstream by seconds, minutes, hours, or days?). This can be useful information both in terms of modelling the KER, as well as for analyzing the critical or dominant paths through an AOP network (e.g., identification of an AO that could kill an organism in a matter of hours will generally be of higher priority than other potential AOs that take weeks or months to develop). Identification of time-scale can also aid the assessment of temporal concordance. For example, for a KER that operates on a time-scale of days, measurement of both KEs after just hours of exposure in a short-term experiment could lead to incorrect conclusions regarding dose-response or temporal concordance if the time-scale of the upstream to downstream transition was not considered. More help

Unknown.

Known modulating factors
This sub-section presents information regarding modulating factors/variables known to alter the shape of the response-response function that describes the quantitative relationship between the two KEs (for example, an iodine deficient diet causes a significant increase in the slope of the relationship; a particular genotype doubles the sensitivity of KEdownstream to changes in KEupstream). Information on these known modulating factors should be listed in this subsection, along with relevant information regarding the manner in which the modulating factor can be expected to alter the relationship (if known). Note, this section should focus on those modulating factors for which solid evidence supported by relevant data and literature is available. It should NOT list all possible/plausible modulating factors. In this regard, it is useful to bear in mind that many risk assessments conducted through conventional apical guideline testing-based approaches generally consider few if any modulating factors. More help

Availability of alternative energy substrates may chance the dynamics of this KER.

Known Feedforward/Feedback loops influencing this KER
This subsection should define whether there are known positive or negative feedback mechanisms involved and what is understood about their time-course and homeostatic limits? In some cases where feedback processes are measurable and causally linked to the outcome, they should be represented as KEs. However, in most cases these features are expected to predominantly influence the shape of the response-response, time-course, behaviours between selected KEs. For example, if a feedback loop acts as compensatory mechanism that aims to restore homeostasis following initial perturbation of a KE, the feedback loop will directly shape the response-response relationship between the KERs. Given interest in formally identifying these positive or negative feedback, it is recommended that a graphical annotation (page 44) indicating a positive or negative feedback loop is involved in a particular upstream to downstream KE transition (KER) be added to the graphical representation, and that details be provided in this subsection of the KER description (see pages 44-45 of the User Handbook).  More help

Ketogenesis diminishes after transition from a fasted state to a fed state.

Domain of Applicability

As for the KEs, there is also a free-text section of the KER description that the developer can use to explain his/her rationale for the structured terms selected with regard to taxonomic, life stage, or sex applicability, or provide a more generalizable or nuanced description of the applicability domain than may be feasible using standardized terms. More help

The relationships described herein have been primarily established in human and rodent models.

References

List of the literature that was cited for this KER description using the appropriate format. Ideally, the list of references should conform, to the extent possible, with the OECD Style Guide (OECD, 2015). More help

Aubert, G., Martin, O.J., Horton, J.L., Lai, L., Vega, R.B., Leone, T.C., Koves, T., Gardell, S.J., Kruger, M., Hoppel, C.L., Lewandowski, E.D., Crawford, P.A., Muoio, D.M., Kelly, D.P., 2016. The Failing Heart Relies on Ketone Bodies as a Fuel. Circulation 133, 698-705.

Badman MK, Pissios P, Kennedy AR, Koukos G, Flier JS, Maratos-Flier E: Hepatic fibroblast growth factor 21 is regulated by PPARalpha and is a key mediator of hepatic lipid metabolism in ketotic states. Cell metabolism 2007, 5(6):426-437.

Cahill Jr., G.F., 2006. Fuel metabolism in starvation. Annual Review of Nutrition 26:1e22.

Desvergne B, Wahli W (1999) Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors: nuclear control of metabolism. Endocrine Reviews 20(5): 649-688.

Evans RM, Barish GD, Wang YX: PPARs and the complex journey to obesity. Nat Med 2004, 10(4):355-361.

Gerich JE, Meyer C, Woerle HJ, Stumvoll M: Renal gluconeogenesis: its importance in human glucose homeostasis. Diabetes Care 2001, 24(2):382-391.

Muoio, D.M., MacLean, P.S., Lang, D.B., Li, S., Houmard, J.A., Way, J.M., Winegar, D.A., Corton, J.C., Dohm, G.L., Kraus, W.E., 2002. Fatty acid homeostasis and induction of lipid regulatory genes in skeletal muscles of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR) alpha knock-out mice. Evidence for compensatory regulation by PPAR delta. J. Biol. Chem. 277, 26089-26097.

Owen OE: Ketone bodies as a fuel for the brain during starvation. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 2005, 33(4):246-251.

Potthoff MJ, Inagaki T, Satapati S, Ding X, He T, Goetz R, Mohammadi M, Finck BN, Mangelsdorf DJ, Kliewer SA et al: FGF21 induces PGC-1α and regulates carbohydrate and fatty acid metabolism during the adaptive starvation response. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2009, 106(26):10853-10858.

Sengupta S, Peterson TR, Laplante M, Oh S, Sabatini DM: mTORC1 controls fasting-induced ketogenesis and its modulation by ageing. Nature 2010, 468(7327):1100-1104.