Recent patch-clamp studies of mitoplasts have challenged the traditional view that classical chemical uncoupling (by e.g. FCCP or DNP) is due to the protonophoric property of these substances themselves. These studies instead suggest that in brown-fat mitochondria, FCCP- and DNP-induced uncoupling is mediated through activation of UCP1 (and in other tissues by activation of the adenine nucleotide transporter). These studies thus advocate an entirely new paradigm for the interpretation of standard bioenergetic experiments.

To examine whether these patch-clamp results obtained in brown-fat mitoplasts are directly transferable to classical isolated brown-fat mitochondria studies, we investigated the effects of FCCP and DNP in brown-fat mitochondria from wildtype and UCP1 KO mice, comparing the FCCP and DNP effects with those of a fatty acid (oleate), a bona fide activator of UCP1.

Whereas the sensitivity of brown-fat mitochondria to oleate was much higher in UCP1-containing than in UCP1 KO mitochondria, there was no difference in sensitivity to FCCP and DNP between these mitochondria, neither in oxygen consumption rate nor in membrane potential studies. Correspondingly, the UCP1-dependent ability of GDP to competitively inhibit activation by oleate was not seen with FCCP and DNP.

It would thus be premature to abandon the established bioenergetic interpretation of chemical uncoupler effects in classical isolated brown-fat mitochondria—and probably also generally in this type of mitochondrial study. Understanding the molecular and structural reasons for the different outcomes of mitoplast and mitochondrial studies is a challenging task.

The existence of the phenomenon of diet-induced thermogenesis—and its possible mediation by UCP1 in brown adipose tissue—has long been, and is presently, an important metabolic controversy. Particularly, several recent studies have failed to observe the hallmark of the phenomenon: augmentation of diet-induced obesity (i.e., fat mass) in UCP1-ablated mice, thus further casting doubt on the possible importance of this thermogenesis, for example in human metabolic control. However, scrutiny of the experimental details revealed important procedural differences between experiments that did not show or did show this augmentation of diet-induced obesity. Particularly, there were notable differences between the commercial diets used (Research Diets or Ssniff). We, therefore, tested to what degree these differences would suffice to explain the absence of a UCP1 effect. Wild-type mice fed Research Diets high-fat diet became obese, but UCP1-ablated mice became even more obese, as expected if UCP1-dependent diet-induced thermogenesis exists. Mice fed the Ssniff high-fat diet became less obese than those on the Research Diets food—and, importantly, no effect of UCP1 ablation was seen. The result with the Research Diets diet was fully due to differences in total fat mass and not explainable by differences in food intake. The two diets are different in carbohydrate (sucrose) and lipid (lard vs. palm oil) composition and in texture and taste. Probably some of these factors explain the difference, but the important conclusion is that when an appropriate diet was offered, the body weight manifestation of the phenomenon of UCP1-dependent diet-induced thermogenesis was a reproducible phenomenon, the existence of which may have significance also for human metabolic control.