Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Review

Effects of estrogens in mitochondria: An approach to type 2 diabetes

  • Received: 24 November 2023 Revised: 23 January 2024 Accepted: 31 January 2024 Published: 19 February 2024
  • Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is characterized by a state of hyperglycemia in the blood due to insulin resistance developed by organs such as muscle, liver, and adipose tissue. A common factor in individuals with T2D is mitochondrial dysfunction. Mitochondria are dynamic organelles responsible for energy and antioxidant metabolism in the cells. Estrogens, such as 17β-estradiol (E2), are steroid hormones that have shown a great capacity to regulate mitochondrial function and dynamics through estrogen receptors (ERs), modulating the expression of mitochondrial biogenesis-related genes and cell signaling mechanisms. The accumulation of reactive oxygen species, the low capacity for ATP synthesis, and morphological alterations are some of the mitochondrial processes impaired in T2D. Insulin signaling and secretion by pancreatic β-cells, ATP-dependent processes, are also altered in T2D. In this review, mitochondria were exposed as the central axis for the action of estrogens in individuals with T2D. Estrogens increased glucose uptake, insulin signaling, and mitochondrial bioenergetics, and decreased ectopic lipid accumulation in non-adipose tissues and oxidative stress, among other processes, in various preclinical and clinical models of diabetes. The development of strategies to target compounds to mitochondria could represent a novel therapeutic alternative to potentiate the effects of estrogens on this organelle in patients with insulin resistance and T2D.

    Citation: Geovanni Alberto Ruiz-Romero, Carolina Álvarez-Delgado. Effects of estrogens in mitochondria: An approach to type 2 diabetes[J]. AIMS Molecular Science, 2024, 11(1): 72-98. doi: 10.3934/molsci.2024006

    Related Papers:

    [1] Moses Khumalo, Hopolang Mashele, Modisane Seitshiro . Quantification of the stock market value at risk by using FIAPARCH, HYGARCH and FIGARCH models. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2023, 3(4): 380-400. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2023022
    [2] Samuel Asante Gyamerah, Collins Abaitey . Modelling and forecasting the volatility of bitcoin futures: the role of distributional assumption in GARCH models. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2022, 2(3): 321-334. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2022016
    [3] Nitesha Dwarika . Asset pricing models in South Africa: A comparative of regression analysis and the Bayesian approach. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2023, 3(1): 55-75. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2023004
    [4] Kasra Pourkermani . VaR calculation by binary response models. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2024, 4(3): 350-361. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2024015
    [5] Alejandro Rodriguez Dominguez, Om Hari Yadav . A causal interactions indicator between two time series using extreme variations in the first eigenvalue of lagged correlation matrices. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2024, 4(3): 422-445. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2024018
    [6] Katleho Makatjane, Ntebogang Moroke . Examining stylized facts and trends of FTSE/JSE TOP40: a parametric and Non-Parametric approach. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2022, 2(3): 294-320. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2022015
    [7] Kazuo Sano . Intelligence and global bias in the stock market. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2023, 3(2): 184-195. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2023011
    [8] Obinna D. Adubisi, Ahmed Abdulkadir, Chidi. E. Adubisi . A new hybrid form of the skew-t distribution: estimation methods comparison via Monte Carlo simulation and GARCH model application. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2022, 2(2): 54-79. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2022003
    [9] Changlin Wang . Different GARCH model analysis on returns and volatility in Bitcoin. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2021, 1(1): 37-59. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2021003
    [10] Dominic Joseph . Estimating credit default probabilities using stochastic optimisation. Data Science in Finance and Economics, 2021, 1(3): 253-271. doi: 10.3934/DSFE.2021014
  • Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is characterized by a state of hyperglycemia in the blood due to insulin resistance developed by organs such as muscle, liver, and adipose tissue. A common factor in individuals with T2D is mitochondrial dysfunction. Mitochondria are dynamic organelles responsible for energy and antioxidant metabolism in the cells. Estrogens, such as 17β-estradiol (E2), are steroid hormones that have shown a great capacity to regulate mitochondrial function and dynamics through estrogen receptors (ERs), modulating the expression of mitochondrial biogenesis-related genes and cell signaling mechanisms. The accumulation of reactive oxygen species, the low capacity for ATP synthesis, and morphological alterations are some of the mitochondrial processes impaired in T2D. Insulin signaling and secretion by pancreatic β-cells, ATP-dependent processes, are also altered in T2D. In this review, mitochondria were exposed as the central axis for the action of estrogens in individuals with T2D. Estrogens increased glucose uptake, insulin signaling, and mitochondrial bioenergetics, and decreased ectopic lipid accumulation in non-adipose tissues and oxidative stress, among other processes, in various preclinical and clinical models of diabetes. The development of strategies to target compounds to mitochondria could represent a novel therapeutic alternative to potentiate the effects of estrogens on this organelle in patients with insulin resistance and T2D.



    The risk-return relationship topic has been studied from as early as the 1950s, with growing enthusiasm to date (Ma et al. 2020). The foremost model used to capture the risk premium is the Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity-in-Mean (GARCH-M) by Engle et al. (1987). The GARCH approach, originated by Engle (1982), assumes that price data and innovations follow a normal distribution. However, such an assumption is based on "simplicity and convenience" because in the real world, the nature of the financial market is subject to nonlinear properties, such as asymmetric volatility and asymmetric effects (Kuang, 2020; Ayed et al. 2020). As a result, the standard GARCH model evolved to asymmetric GARCH models such as EGARCH, APARCH and GJR, to capture asymmetric volatility and the asymmetric effects - volatility feedback and the leverage effect. While the GARCH approach has the ability to capture the volatile nature of financial data, the model is unable to effectively capture asymmetry, as sufficed by Mangani (2008), Mandimika and Chinzara (2012), Ilupeju (2016), Naradh et al. (2021) and Dwarika et al. (2021).

    Another extension that has gained popularity over the years, to assist with capturing asymmetry, is the combination of GARCH models with various innovation distributions (Delis et al. 2021; Kuang, 2020). According to Alqaralleh et al. (2020), innovation distributions that capture the empirical nature of returns, such as higher moment properties, skewness and excess kurtosis, make "excellent tools" in the estimation of accurate forecasts. While there is existing literature on different probability distributions, only one study by Delis et al. (2021), to the best of the authors knowledge, applied a different distribution to investigate the risk-return relationship. Drawn from Ma et al. (2020) and Tsay (2013), a reason for the lack of literature is the limited ability to manipulate the modelling of the time-varying risk-return relationship. According to Tsay (2013), when modelling the GARCH approach in R, if the model is invalid by failing to converge or is insignificant, the mean and/ or constant can be dropped to make the model valid. Since the GARCH-M, as the name suggests, contains the risk premium within the mean, it cannot be dropped (Ma et al. 2020; Tsay, 2013). Hence, this presents a gap in literature for the exploration of different innovation distributions with the GARCH-M approach to investigate the risk-return relationship.

    By targeting this specific issue, this can improve the overall efficiency of the risk estimation ability of the GARCH approach. The problem statement is that due to the GARCH modelling assumption of normality, the risk-return relationship is underestimated, leading to inaccurate forecasts. This is especially relevant in the case of an emerging market, such as South Africa, which is subject to heavy tails due to high and persistent levels of market volatility (Dwarika et al. 2021; Naradh et al. 2021). At the same time, such a market presents "huge investment opportunities" for investors that seek a superior return (Ayed et al. 2020). In other words, the higher the risk taken, the higher the expected rate of return. The relationship between risk and return provides valuable information to structure investment strategies, assist budget plans and allocate resources. Given the wide use of the GARCH approach in risk management, as documented by Saddah and Sitanggang (2020) and Ayed et al. (2020), acknowledging and implementing improvements in stochastic volatility models can improve forecast accuracy and lead to more financially sound decisions.

    There is no existing study, to the best of the authors knowledge, that has conducted a comparative analysis of different innovation distributions in the context of the GARCH-M approach. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the optimal GARCH-M model and innovation distribution, to determine the risk-return relationship. Hence, the primary aim is to determine the optimal GARCH-M type model to investigate the risk-return relationship. The secondary aim is to find an innovation distribution to optimize the GARCH-M tails, i.e., optimally capture risk. To ensure optimal model diagnostics, this study follows the international standard procedure, established by the regulatory framework - the Basel Accords. The Basel Accord I recommends Value at Risk (VaR) and backtesting methods to ensure the GARCH model's efficiency (Ayed et al. 2020; Kuang, 2020). VaR computes the maximum loss of a portfolio over a specific period of time for a given confidence interval (Kuang, 2020). The backtesting procedure is used to test whether the actual losses are in line with the forecasted values (Ayed et al. 2020). Essentially, it is used as a tool to determine the optimal forecast power of the VaR estimates.

    This study consists of five sections. First, the Introduction provides an overview of the background and what this study aims to achieve. Second, the Literature Review outlines existing South African studies on the GARCH-M approach with different innovation distributions and then extends to international work. This section is concluded by identifying gaps found in the body of literature. Third, the Methodology covers the data, GARCH type models and innovation distributions employed in this study. Fourth, the Empirical Results and Discussion consist of the implications of the results alongside the model output. Finally, the key findings of this study are summed up in the Conclusions.

    According to Markowitz (1952), risk and return hold a positive and linear relationship in theory. Therefore, when an investor makes an investment in an emerging market that is characterized by high-risk, the investor expects a higher rate of potential return, in compensation for investing in a volatile environment that does not guarantee a superior return. However, early studies by Mangani (2008), Mandimika and Chinzara (2012) and Adu et al. (2015) found no risk-return relationship in the largest South African stock market at the time - the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE). All three studies employed the GARCH approach, but found limitations in the model's ability to efficiently capture risk, especially by the model's innovations.

    Dwarika et al. (2021) consolidated several limitations of the GARCH approach. The study analyzed the daily JSE All Share Index (ALSI) returns for the sample period from 15 October 2009 to 15 October 2019. The models employed were GARCH (1, 1), EGARCH, GJR and APARCH, with the standard normal (NORM), Student-t (Stud-t), Skewed Student-t (Skew-t) and the Generalized Error distribution (GED). The study found EGARCH to be the optimal model, but the innovations showed that asymmetry remained uncaptured, in line with Mangani (2008), Mandimika and Chinzara (2012) and Ilupeju (2016). While the overall finding was a positive risk-return relationship, contrasting results were found for the Skew-t distribution, as GARCH-M found no relationship, whereas EGARCH-M found a positive relationship. Emenogu et al. (2020) also found that the Skew-t performance varied with the different GARCH models. Thus, this inconsistency highlighted the significance of the innovation distribution choice, as it has the ability to affect parameter estimation.

    Ayed et al. (2020) investigated the optimal GARCH model and innovation distribution by analyzing daily data, over the sample period from 10 August 2006 to 14 December 2014, of the Islamic stock market. The study employed the standard GARCH and APARCH with the distributions - the NORM, Stud-t and Skew-t. The study found APARCH and the Skew-t to be optimal. From the VaR and backtesting procedure, at a 99% level of VaR, the Stud-t and Skew-t were optimal, whereas for a 95% VaR, the forecast of NORM was more robust. However, the GARCH (1, 1) is critiqued by Saddah and Sitanggang (2020) for underestimating risk. This is because a simple GARCH model is unable to effectively capture higher moment properties (Mandimika and Chinzara, 2012; Kuang, 2020). Similarly, applying GARCH type models with the conventional and normal type distributions, to a volatile emerging market, is considered ineffective (Ayed et al. 2020; Bautista and Mora, 2020; Saddah and Sitanggang, 2020). Thus, other asymmetric properties need to be taken into account.

    For instance, Delis et al. (2021) found a positive risk-return relationship, in line with theoretical expectations, confirming the significance of accounting for skewness to assist with capturing asymmetry. The authors modelled the daily returns of the S & P500 index, over the sample period from 02 January 1980 to 14 October 2020, using GARCH-M with a Skewed GED. The study concluded that skewness is vital in the estimation of the risk-return relationship, especially during periods of excess volatility such as the COVID-19 pandemic. However, Khan et al. (2021) investigated the recent effects of the pandemic on the Indian stock market using a different approach, namely, the Extreme Value Theory (EVT). This approach specifically focuses on tail behavior, where extreme events such as the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19 occur. Khan et al. (2021) used the Generalized Pareto distribution (GPD) to model the high-frequency 5-min data of the NIFTY 50 returns for the sample period 11 March 2020 to 30 September 2020. During the pandemic, it was found that returns dropped by 9%, and that 5% of the data was above the specified threshold, indicating an asymmetric return distribution, in line with empirical expectations. Khan et al. (2021) concluded the efficiency of the GPD in the field of EVT to provide useful information during the period of a crisis.

    In contrast, Kuang (2020) found that the Pearson Type Ⅳ distribution (PIVD) outperformed the Stud-t, Generalized Extreme Value distribution (GEVD) and GPD using VaR. The GEVD is another innovation distribution from the EVT. The PIVD is flexible due to its ability to account for higher moment properties, particularly skewness and excess kurtosis. The author analyzed the daily data of the indices S & P500, FTSE100, CAC40, and DAX30 from 03 May 2002 to 31 December 2009. The study concluded the superiority of the PIVD in capturing skewness, which affects the accuracy of risk estimation, in line with Delis et al. (2021). Although not investigated in the study by Kuang (2020), the author mentioned another robust distribution, the Stable distribution, which accounts for heavy tails, skewness and excess kurtosis. Bautista and Mora (2020) applied VaR to the oil sector using GARCH with the distributions - NORM, Generalized Stud-t and Stable. The authors found that the NORM underperformed because the oil returns followed a heavy-tailed distribution. The Generalized Stud-t was more optimal than the NORM, but overall Stable was the most robust distribution, in line with Ilupeju (2016), Bautista and Mata (2020) and Naradh et al. (2021).

    In conclusion, it can be noted that there are two major research gaps in literature. Firstly, the South African studies are limited to the conventional innovation distributions: NORM, Stud-t, Skew-t and GED, in the context of the risk-return relationship, as sufficed by Mangani (2008), Mandimika and Chinzara (2012) and Dwarika et al. (2021). While the Stud-t, Skew-t and GED can account for some degree of asymmetry, it is vital to consider more flexible distributions that can take into account heavy tails and other higher moment properties such as skewness and excess kurtosis. In turn, this will enhance the risk efficiency of the GARCH approach and improve the forecast accuracy of the risk-return relationship. Secondly, only one existing study by Delis et al. (2021), investigated the GARCH-M with a different innovation distribution - the Skewed GED. A possible reason for the lack of literature is due to limited model manipulation arising from software constraints. To overcome this limitation, it would be advisable to investigate several GARCH type models. In line with international literature, this study extends to the VaR and backtesting procedure since none of the South African studies employed this international regulatory framework, in the context of the GARCH-M approach.

    Figure 1 shows a flow chart diagram of the methodology employed in this study to determine the optimal GARCH-M and innovation distribution.

    Figure 1.  Methodological steps to find the optimal GARCH-M and innovation distribution.
    Source: Authors own

    The JSE ALSI market returns are modelled by the GARCH-M (1, 1) type models - standard GARCH, GJR, EGARCH and APARCH with the innovation distributions: NORM, Stud-t, Skew-t and GED. The optimal GARCH-M model is selected by information criteria. The innovations are then extracted to determine if risk remains uncaptured by the "risk check". If risk remains uncaptured, the more robust innovation distributions are employed: PIVD, GEVD, GPD and Stable. Model diagnostics are used to determine if the distributions are adequate in capturing asymmetry. Thereafter, the VaR and backtesting methods are employed to determine the optimal innovation distribution.

    Following Dwarika et al. (2021) and Naradh et al. (2021), this study will obtain the daily price data of the JSE ALSI from the Integrated Real-time Equity System (IRESS) database, previously known as the McGregor Bureau for Financial Analysis (BFA). The IRESS database is a reliable source of obtaining data and is hosted on the IRESS Research Domain, where market data is available for financial analysis and academic research purposes (IRESS, 2022).

    Following Emenogu et al. (2020), this study investigates a duration of 17 years made up of a total of 4251 observations. The updated sample period analyzed is from 05 October 2004 to 05 October 2021. This period included the 2008 financial crises and COVID-19 pandemic. These are global economic events, but more importantly, extreme events that affect tail behavior which this study takes into account, in line with Kuang (2020) and Khan et al. (2021).

    Following Dwarika et al. (2021), the risk-free rate proxy is the South African T-bill, which shall be obtained from the South African Reserve Bank (SARB). The ALSI price data is converted to returns by Rm=ln(P­tPt1), where Rm = market returns and Pt = share price for the current day t and Pt1 = share price for the previous day t1. The annual risk-free rate is converted to a daily value by Daily Rf=(1+yearly Rf)(1365)1, given by Brooks (2014). Excess returns are computed as the difference between market returns and the risk-free rate (Delis et al. 2021).

    Following convention in literature, the data is tested for stationarity to ensure a valid time series, by employing the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF), Phillips-Perron (PP) and Kwiatkowski, Phillips, Schmidt and Shin (KPSS) test. The data is also tested for normality and heteroscedasticity to show the asymmetric nature of returns. Thus, substantiating the employment of the GARCH extensions which can account for such higher moment properties and consequentially improve forecast accuracy.

    Following Dwarika et al. (2021), Naradh et al. (2021), Ilupeju (2016) and Mandimika and Chinzara (2012), the foremost GARCH-M type models are estimated by the Maximum Likelihood (ML) method, in combination with the four conventional innovation distributions: NORM, Stud-t, Skew-t and GED. The GARCH-M models follow the mean model of the standard GARCH by Engle (1982):

    yt=μ+pj=1δjσ2tj+ut (1)

    where yt = conditional mean, μ = constant, δj = risk premium, σ2tj = variance and ut = innovation term.

    The conditional variance of the asymmetric GARCH-M models is listed respectively. GJR by Glosten et al. (1993):

    σt2=α0+qi=1αiu2t1+pj=1βjσ2tj+γu2t1It1 (2.1)

    where α0 = constant term, u2t1 = squared lagged innovation term, α1 = ARCH effect (short-term volatility persistence), βj = GARCH effect (long-term volatility persistence), γ = asymmetry parameter (to capture asymmetric volatility and asymmetric effects) and It1 = interaction variable (accounts for positive and negative shocks).

    EGARCH by Nelson (1991):

    ln(σt2)=α0+qi=1αi[|ut1|E|ut|]+pj=1βjln(σ2tj)+γut1 (2.2)

    where α1[|zt1|E|zt|] = magnitude of the innovation and γzt1 = sign effect (accounts for positive and negative shocks).

    APARCH by Ding et al. (1993):

    σδt=α0+pi=1αi(|uti|γiu­ti)δ+qj1βjσδtj (2.3)

    where δ = is an exponent that allows the APARCH model to take on several GARCH models. For example, in this study, the GJR-GARCH is implemented by setting δ of the APARCH model to 2, in line with Tsay (2013).

    The optimal GARCH-M is selected by model diagnostics, information criteria, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), following standard literature. The standardized innovations of the optimal GARCH-M and innovation distribution are then extracted.

    Following Dwarika et al. (2021), which built on Mangani (2008), Mandimika and Chinzara (2012) and Ilupeju (2016), the standardized innovations of the optimal GARCH-M are tested for normality, heteroscedasticity and randomness by a framework of preliminary tests. This study will formalize such testing as a "risk check" to determine the extent of uncaptured risk, more specifically, due to which property of risk is being underestimated (the asymmetric, volatile or random nature of the innovations). Table 1 shows the "risk check" framework.

    Table 1.  Risk check.
    Test Name Abbreviation
    Normality Shapiro-Wilk SW
    Jarque-Bera JB
    Anderson-Darling AD
    Heteroscedasticity Ljung-Box LB2
    Autoregressive Conditional
    Heteroscedastic-Lagrange Multiplier
    ARCH-LM
    Randomness Bartels rank Bartels rank
    Cox-Stuart Cox-Stuart
    Brock, Dechert and Scheinkman BDS
    Source: Authors own formalization

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Based on the aforementioned South African studies, the GARCH-M model's innovations are expected to show uncaptured risk, to substantiate the application of the more robust probability distributions: PIVD, GEVD, GPD and Stable. Following Bautista and Mora (2020), Bautista and Mata (2020), Naradh et al. (2021) and Ilupeju (2016), the innovation distributions are estimated by the ML method.

    According to Kuang (2020), the PIVD is described as flexible due to its ability to account for higher moment properties, particularly skewness. The PIVD is given as:

    f(x)=k(m,ν,θ)(1+(xλθ)2)mexp[νtan1(xλθ)],(m>12) (3)

    where λ = location, θ = scale, k = normalization constant, m = kurtosis and ν = skewness.

    The location parameter λ is the mean and the scale θ is the standard deviation. The scale determines the width, whereas the location represents the shift of the mode of the distribution. The sign indicates the direction in which the distribution shifted. For example, if positive, then the distribution is shifted to the right. The purpose of the normalization constant k is to ensure the function is a probability distribution function.

    In the context of this study, focus is placed on the higher moment properties of the distributions. The kurtosis parameter m controls the tail thickness, where low values indicate thin tails and large values indicate heavy tails. Specifically, values more than 2.5 indicate heavy tails (Ilupeju, 2016). The direction of skewness is indicated by the sign of the parameter ν, where ν>0 is positively skewed and ν<0 is negatively skewed (Kuang, 2020).

    The aim of the EVT is to examine the behavior of outliers (extreme values) of a random variable. The advantage is that focus is placed on tail behavior instead of the entire distribution (Echaust and Just, 2020). Such an approach is relevant, given the recent COVID-19 pandemic, as sufficed by Omari et al. (2020), Khan et al. (2021) and Delis et al. (2021).

    Following Echaust and Just (2020), Kuang (2020) and Khan et al. (2021), the EVT is characterized by two modelling approaches, the Block Maxima Model (BMM) and Peaks Over Threshold (POT). The POT approach uses a predetermined threshold to determine extreme values, whereas the BMM chooses a maximum value for a given block which is defined as a specified period of time. The GEVD falls under the BMM, whereby the innovations are divided into equal lengths, representing consecutive blocks. The maximum innovation values are then selected from each block. The choice of block size is vital as a small value can indicate estimation bias, whereas a large value can result in estimation variance. A block value of five or ten is sufficient to ensure accurate results (Ilupeju, 2016). Echaust and Just (2020) give the GEVD as:

    f(x)={θ1exp(xλθ)exp(exp(xλθ)),ξ=0,θ1(1+ξ(xλθ))1ξ1exp((1+ξ(xλθ))ξ1),ξ0. (4)

    where λ = location, θ = scale and ξ = shape.

    The shape ξ, also known as the tail index, describes the nature of the distribution. If ξ<0, this indicates a Weibull distribution, a short-tailed distribution defined as having a finite right tail. If ξ>0, the distribution is a Frechet type (inverse Weibull distribution) that is heavy-tailed, where examples include Stud-t and Stable. If ξ=0, this indicates a thin-tailed distribution such as NORM and log-NORM.

    Following Khan et al. (2021), model diagnostics in the form of normality tests are employed to determine whether the GEVD is an adequate fit for the innovations. This study employs the Anderson Darling (AD) test, probability plot (PP), quantile-quantile (QQ) plot, return level plot and density plot. The AD normality test focuses on tail behavior. If the AD test statistic is greater than the critical value, the null hypothesis that the innovations are normally distributed can be rejected. With respect to the plots, a major deviation between the empirical and theoretical distribution, would indicate nonnormality, thus an inadequate fit of the GEVD.

    According to Echaust and Just (2020), the POT approach is considered more advantageous than the BMM, because it focuses on all possible events greater than the threshold and not just the largest events. The aim of POT is to assess the data and model all the data points that are above the specified threshold u. Making an accurate selection of the threshold is vital for analysis.

    The conventional approach is to use graphical analysis - mean residual life plot and parameter stability plot - to determine the threshold value. The mean residual life plot shows the mean excesses against the threshold of the standardized innovations for both tails. The selected threshold would occur where there is an upward linear trend in the slope of the mean excess values (Khan et al. 2021). A parameter stability plot is employed to show the optimal shape and scale parameters against the threshold values that range from 1.0 to 2.0 (Naradh et al. 2021). Such methods consist of identifying stable regions in the graphs which are considered highly subjective, by Echaust and Just (2020). In order to confirm the threshold, a Pareto quantile plot is employed to state the respective number of positive and negative innovations above the threshold. The innovations are fitted to the GPD and then the shape and scale parameters are estimated by the ML method. Echaust and Just (2020) give the GPD as:

    G­ξ,θ(x){1(1+ξxθ)1ξ,ξ01exp(xθ),ξ=0 (5)

    where θ>0, x0 for ξ0 and 0xxξ for ξ<0. The GPD has just two parameters, θ = scale and ξ = shape.

    A thin-tailed distribution is indicated by ξ<0, whereas a heavy-tailed distribution such as Stable, is indicated by ξ>0. Similar to the GEVD procedure, the model diagnostics employed are a PP, QQ, return level and density plot.

    The school of α-Stable or Stable distributions is a widely documented class of probability distributions that can effectively model excess kurtosis, skewness, volatility clustering, asymmetry and heavy tails (Bautista and Mata, 2020; Kuang, 2020). Bautista and Mora (2020) give the Stable distribution as:

    E[exp(itX)]={exp(θα|t|α[1ivsign(t)tan(πα2)]+iλt),α1exp(θ|t|[1+iv2πsign(t)ln|t|]+iλt),α=1 (6)

    where λR = location, θ>0 = scale, 1v1 = skewness, and 0<α2 = tail exponent.

    The sign of v indicates the direction of skewness and is subject to the given constraint above. The tail exponent, also known as the index of stability, represents the rate at which the tails diminish or come to an end. When α>2, the mean is equivalent to the location λ, but no mean exists when α<1. If α<2, this results in an infinite variance and the tails are thus heavy.

    Following Bautista and Mata (2020) and Naradh et al. (2021), the model diagnostics include the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) and AD normality tests. KS computes the difference between the theoretical and empirical distribution, whereas AD computes the mean of square differences. A variance stabilized PP plot and density plot are employed to show a graphical analysis of the distribution fit.

    The four fitted innovation distributions are analyzed by model diagnostics, thereafter the optimal distribution is determined by VaR and backtesting methods.

    VaR is a well-known measure of market risk and is used in the fields of portfolio management and risk management (Bautista and Mata, 2020; Emenogu et al. 2020; Omari et al. 2020). Following Kuang (2020), the estimation of the VaR is made up of the GARCH-M in combination with the innovation distributions. VaR is given as P(RRtVaR­t(α))=α, which is defined as the probability of the risk-return relationship RR at time t less than or equal to the VaR estimate at the percentage of time α. Delis et al. (2021) stated that there are both upper and lower tails of a distribution that correspond to α. In the context of this study, the upper tails are known as the short position, associated with gains, where the confidence intervals are defined as 97.5 and 99%. Similarly, the lower tails are known as the long position, associated with losses and are defined as 1 and 2.5%. The highest VaR estimates indicate high-risk potential losses and biased values, where the distribution is inadequate; the lowest VaR estimates indicate the opposite (Ayed et al. 2020; Bautista and Mata, 2020).

    Following several studies, such as Kuang (2020), Ayed et al. (2020) and Echaust and Just (2020), the backtesting procedure is used to analyze the forecast power of the VaR estimates. In this study, the backtesting procedure consists of the violation ratio (VR), the Kupiec unconditional coverage test, Christoffersen conditional coverage test and VaR duration-based test. The calculation of the violation ratio (VR) is given by Emenogu et al. (2020) as:

    VR=Actual number of violationsExpected number of violations (7)

    where if VR < 1, risk is underestimated and if VR > 1, risk is overestimated. If 0.8 ≤ VR ≤ 1.2, the forecasted risk is optimal, whereas 0.5 < VR < 1.5 is inadequate.

    The VR serves as a preliminary test as it is a very simple method to check model adequacy; therefore, more powerful tests are employed. According to Kuang (2020) and Ayed et al. (2020), an optimal VaR model satisfies the unconditional and conditional coverage properties. The unconditional property states that the observed number of violations should be in line with expected values at a given confidence interval. If the observed and expected values are inconsistent, this phenomenon would be referred to as the failure rate which is defined as the number of violations. The conditional property states that such violations are independent of each other. Thus, the more robust tests of the backtesting evaluation criteria consist of the Kupiec unconditional coverage test and Christoffersen conditional coverage test.

    To investigate the unconditional property, the proportion of failure test by Kupiec (1995) is employed. The null hypothesis is that the observed number of violations is consistent with the expected values at a given confidence interval. The Kupiec test statistic is given as:

    KUC=2ln[(1p)nm]+2ln[(1mn)nm(mn)m] (8)

    where p = the assumed probability of occurrence, m = number of hits of the model (number of times the loss is greater than the VaR estimate) and n = number of tests.

    The test statistic KUC follows a chi-squared distribution with one degree of freedom (X2(1)). If KUC is less than the critical value, do not reject the null hypothesis and conclude model adequacy. If KUC is greater than the critical value, reject the null and conclude model inadequacy.

    To investigate the conditional property, the conditional joint test by Christoffersen (1998) is employed, where the test statistic is given as:

    LCC=KUC+CIND (9)

    The test statistic consists of the Kupiec unconditional test and Christoffersen (1998) independence test. For the latter, the null hypothesis is that the failure rate is independent, indicating model adequacy. The test statistic is given as:

    CIND=2ln[(1ˆπ2)n00+n01ˆπ2n01+n11]+2ln[(1ˆπ01)n00ˆπn0101(1ˆπ11)n10ˆπn1111],ˆπ01=n01n01+n01, ˆπ11=n11n10+n11 and ˆπ2=n01+n11n00+n10+n01+n11 (10)

    where ˆπij = number of times that state i follows state j, state 0 = independence and state 1 = dependence.

    The decision procedure for the test statistic CIND follows the Kupiec unconditional test. It should be noted that for the joint decision procedure, the test statistic LCC follows a chi-squared distribution with two degrees of freedom (X2(2)). A limitation of the independence test is that it only tests for one-day violations instead of over multiple days (Echaust and Just, 2020). Thus, a VaR duration-based test is employed to investigate the time dynamics between the past and future violations.

    For the VaR duration-based test by Christoffersen and Pelletier (2004), the expectation is that given any day, future violations should not occur because of the past. The null hypothesis is that the probability of a violation on any day is subject to the no memory property, whereby it is independent of the effects of the previous day(s) and has a mean distribution of 1/p.

    To explain the latter, consider the Weibull parameter = b, where the Weibull distribution is of a school of continuous probability distributions that can take on several shapes. When b=1, it follows an exponential distribution which is the only distribution that is memory free. Thus, if the time between violations has no memory of each other, the average is 1/p as defined by the exponential distribution. The Weibull distribution is a function of the failure rate to an index of time, given as:

    f(d)=abbdb1exp{(ad)b} (11)

    where d = number of days, b = shape parameter and a = scale parameter.

    The test statistic is defined as:

    D=2(logL(ˆa)logL(p)) (12)

    where L = likelihood, ˆa = estimated scale parameter and p = probability of no memory violation.

    The decision procedure for the test statistic D follows the Kupiec unconditional test.

    Following standard literature, this study uses the estimated p-values to make the decisions for the hypothesis tests. The highest p-value indicates the optimal model (Ayed et al. 2020; Omari et al. 2020).

    Following Dwarika et al. (2021) and Naradh et al. (2021), the daily closing price data of the JSE ALSI are obtained from IRESS for the sample period from 04 October 2004 to 05 October 2021. The ALSI price data is converted to market returns by taking the natural log form of the difference between closing prices of the current and previous day. Following Dwarika et al. (2021), the annual T-bill obtained from the SARB is converted to a daily value to compute excess returns. The ALSI (excess) return data is made up of a total of 4251 observations. The ALSI returns is confirmed to be stationary, by the ADF, PP and KPSS tests, to avoid a spurious regression and ensure a valid time series. The statistical properties of the ALSI returns are investigated by standard preliminary tests. Table 2 shows the preliminary test results of the ALSI returns.

    Table 2.  Preliminary tests of the ALSI returns.
    Property Tests Test Statistic p-value
    Normality JB 5703.8000 < 0.0001
    SW 0.9436 < 0.0001
    AD 39.5940 < 0.0001
    Heteroscedasticity LB2 5397.4000 < 0.0001
    ARCH-LM 931.4000 < 0.0001

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 2, since the p-values are less than 5%, the null hypothesis that the ALSI returns follow a normal distribution is rejected at a 5% level of significance. The null hypothesis that the ARCH effect is absent within the ALSI return series is also rejected at a 5% level of significance. In conclusion, the series of the ALSI returns are asymmetric, nonnormal and volatile in nature; thus, substantiating the employment of the GARCH-M type models.

    Following Dwarika et al. (2021), Naradh et al. (2021), Ilupeju (2016) and Mandimika and Chinzara (2012), the foremost GARCH-M type models and innovation distributions are investigated. The GARCH-M models are shown for the four innovation distributions: NORM, Stud-t, Skew-t and the GED. Table 3 shows the relevant significant ML parameter estimates of the GARCH-M (1, 1) models with the different innovation distributions.

    Table 3.  ML parameter estimates of the GARCH-M models with different innovation distributions.
    Model Estimates NORM Stud-t Skew-t GED
    GARCH-M ˆα1 0.0952 *** 0.0734 *** 0.0883 *** 0.0739 ***
    ˆβ1 0.8897 *** 0.9256 *** 0.8976 *** 0.9251 ***
    ˆδ 0.1165 ** 0.0964 ** 0.1116 ** 0.0999 **
    GJR-GARCH-M ˆα1 0.0450 *** 0.0396 *** 0.0359 *** 0.0416 ***
    ˆβ1 0.9066 *** 0.9410 *** 0.9108 *** 0.9075 ***
    ˆγ 0.7425 *** 0.6829 *** 0.9186 *** 0.7971 ***
    ˆδ 0.0921 *** −0.0850 ** 0.0984 *** 0.1071 ***
    EGARCH-M ˆα1 −0.1069 *** −0.1048 *** −0.1045 *** −0.1051 ***
    ˆβ1 0.9777 *** 0.9793 *** 0.9799 *** 0.9781 ***
    ˆγ 0.1329 *** 0.1294 *** 0.1257 *** 0.1320 ***
    ˆδ 0.0744 *** 0.0902 *** 0.0699 *** 0.0928 ***
    APARCH-M ˆα1 0.0700 *** 0.0672 *** 0.0634 *** 0.0691 ***
    ˆβ1 0.9200 *** 0.9228 *** 0.9494 *** 0.9204 ***
    ˆγ 0.8637 *** 0.8817 *** 0.8047 *** 0.8617 ***
    ˆδ 0.1008 *** 0.1163 *** −0.1078 *** 0.1163 ***
    NOTE: *, **, *** means the p-value is significant at a 10%, 5% and 1% level of significance, respectively

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 3, the GARCH-M models are valid since the ARCH and GARCH effects are significant at all the levels of significance (1, 5 and 10%). The sum of the ARCH and GARCH effects (ˆα1+ˆβ1) is positive and high, indicating strong and persistent levels of volatility in the South African market. The only exception is for APARCH-M Skew-t, with a sum greater than one, indicative of an overestimation of risk, in line with Dwarika et al. (2021). All the models have an asymmetry parameter ˆγ>0, which indicates the presence of asymmetric volatility and asymmetric effects. The presence of high levels of volatility, asymmetric volatility and asymmetric effects are in line with the empirical expectations of an emerging market and prior South African studies.

    The risk premium ˆδ is statistically significant at a 5 and 10% level of significance for the GARCH-M approach. The majority of the GARCH-M models have a positive ˆδ, indicating a positive risk-return relationship. This finding is in line with Dwarika et al. (2021) but contrasts to earlier studies, by Mangani (2008), Mandimika and Chinzara (2012) and Adu et al. (2015), who found no relationship. The significance of the risk premium of the asymmetric GARCH-M models improved in comparison to the standard GARCH-M. This is due to the more robust fit of the asymmetric GARCH-M models to the asymmetric nature of the financial data, as suggested by Saddah and Sitanggang (2020).

    In terms of theoretical expectations, it follows that a positive risk-return relationship will exist. That is, since the South African market is characterized as high-risk, an investor can expect a superior rate of return. This was confirmed by the positive risk premium found by the majority of the GARCH-M test results. The only exceptions are GJR-M Stud-t and APARCH-M Skew-t, where the risk premium is negative. The change in sign is due to modelling adjustments made, such as the dropping of a constant, to ensure the model is valid. The optimal GARCH-M is investigated by model diagnostics. Table 4 shows the information criteria of the GARCH-M models with the different innovation distributions.

    Table 4.  ML parameter estimates of the GARCH-M models with different innovation distributions.
    Model Criteria NORM Stud-t Skew-t GED
    GARCH-M AIC −6.3132 −6.3138 −6.3391 −6.3099
    BIC −6.3057 −6.3064 −6.3286 −6.3024
    GJR-GARCH-M AIC −6.3380 −6.3323 −6.3631 −6.3440
    BIC −6.3290 −6.3233 −6.3511 −6.3335
    EGARCH-M AIC −6.3397 −6.3482 −6.3642 −6.3453
    BIC −6.3308 −6.3377 −6.3523 −6.3348
    APARCH-M AIC −6.3412 −6.3500 −6.3519 −6.3468
    BIC −6.3322 −6.3395 −6.3414 −6.3363

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 4, the consistent optimal fitting innovation distribution to the respective GARCH-M models is Skew-t, in line with Dwarika et al. (2021), Ayed et al. (2020) and Omari et al. (2020). This finding is in contrast to Emenogu et al. (2020), who found that the Skew-t performance varied with different GARCH type models. The NORM is the least optimal fit for EGARCH and APARCH, as expected by Mandimika and Chinzara (2012), Kuang (2020) and Saddah and Sitanggang (2020). The asymmetric financial data would make a more robust fit with distributions designed to account for heavy tails and other higher moment properties.

    EGARCH is found to be the optimal model in this study, in line with Dwarika et al. (2021), Naradh et al. (2021), Saddah and Sitanggang (2020) and Omari et al. (2020). This is in contrast to APARCH which was found to be optimal by Ilupeju (2016) and Ayed et al. (2020). Overall, Skew-t is the optimal fitting innovation distribution in combination with EGARCH-M, in line with Dwarika et al. (2021) and Omari et al. (2020). The risk check is employed to investigate the properties of uncaptured risk.

    Following Dwarika et al. (2021), which built on Mangani (2008), Mandimika and Chinzara (2012) and Ilupeju (2016), the standardized innovations of the EGARCH-M Skew-t model are investigated by the risk check to determine the extent of uncaptured risk. Table 5 shows the risk check test results for the innovations of the EGARCH-M Skew-t model.

    Table 5.  Risk check for the innovations of EGARCH-M Skew-t.
    Test Name Results
    Normality SW 0.9912 ***
    JB 172.6900 ***
    AD 7.6300 ***
    Heteroscedasticity LB2 32.1690 **
    ARCH-LM 99.6250 ***
    Randomness Bartels rank −0.9442
    Cox-Stuart 1033.0000
    BDS 0.4998
    NOTE: *, **, *** means the p-value is significant at a 10%, 5% and 1% level of significance, respectively

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 5, the normality tests show that the innovations are asymmetric in nature, indicating that asymmetry has been inadequately captured. Since the p-values of the heteroscedasticity tests are significant, this means that volatility is present within the innovations and remains uncaptured. This finding is in contrast to Dwarika et al. (2021) and Ilupeju (2016). It could be due to this study's selected sample period, which included highly volatile periods, such as the 2008 financial crisis and recent COVID-19 pandemic.

    The randomness tests reveal that the innovations exhibit random behavior, hence, an indication of uncaptured risk. In conclusion, the asymmetric, volatile and random nature of the innovations is inadequately captured by EGARCH-M Skew-t. The overall finding of uncaptured risk is in line with Mangani (2008), Mandimika and Chinzara (2012), Ilupeju (2016) and Dwarika et al. (2021). The failed risk check motivates the employment of more robust nonnormal innovation distributions

    The different innovation distributions are fitted to the standardized innovations extracted from EGARCH-M Skew-t. Table 6 shows the ML parameter estimates of the PIVD.

    Table 6.  ML parameter estimates of the PIVD.
    ˆm ˆv ˆλ ˆθ AD test
    (p-value)
    8.9423 6.3842 1.4370 3.5814 0.2370
    (0.9768)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 6, ˆm is 8.9423 which indicates a positive and high kurtosis value. More specifically, a heavy-tailed distribution, as expected, in line with a PIVD and the market characteristics of an emerging market. The sign of the skewness parameter 6.3842 indicates a positively skewed distribution. The AD test indicates that the innovations follow a normal distribution. Thus, it can be concluded that the PIVD outperforms the Skew-t distribution and is a more robust fit for the innovations, in line with Ilupeju (2016) and Kuang (2020).

    Following Ilupeju (2016), the block size used in this study is five to ensure accurate results. Table 7 shows the ML parameter estimates of the GEVD with the Standard Errors (SE) in brackets. Let zt = positive innovations and zt=zt = negative innovations.

    Table 7.  ML parameter estimates of the GEVD.
    Maxima (m) (ˆξ)
    SE(ξ)
    (ˆθ)
    SE(ˆθ)
    (ˆλ)
    SE(ˆλ)
    AD test
    (p-value)
    zt 850.2000 −0.1441
    (0.0133)
    0.8652
    (0.0204)
    0.5538
    (0.0139)
    1.7572
    (0.1254)
    zt 850.2000 −0.0795
    (0.0210)
    0.8556
    (0.0257)
    0.6796
    (0.0181)
    0.2291
    (0.9803)
    zt = positive innovations and zt=zt = negative innovations

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 7, the tail index represented by the shape parameter ˆξ is less than zero for both the positive and negative innovations. This indicates a Weibull distribution, a short-tailed distribution defined as having a finite right tail. The AD test confirms that the GEVD is an adequate fit, since the innovations follow a normal distribution, in line with the PIVD above. Figures 2 and 3 show the model diagnostics of the GEVD for the standardized innovations.

    Figure 2.  GEVD diagnostic plots of the positive innovations.
    Figure 3.  GEVD diagnostic plots of the negative innovations.

    From Figures 2 and 3, the PP plot shows a perfect fit of the innovations to the GEVD. However, from the QQ plots, the data points do show some departure from the theoretical straight line. From the return level plots, most of the points that deviate from the straight line still fall on or within the confidence bands; therefore, the fit is adequate. The density plot confirms the adequate fit as most of the points lie on the GEVD. According to Echaust and Just (2020), the GPD is considered more advantageous than the GEVD, because it focuses on all possible events greater than the threshold and not just the largest events.

    The threshold selection is made, by graphical methods, before the GPD analysis. Figures 4 and 5 show the mean innovation life plots for the standardized innovations.

    Figure 4.  Mean innovation life plot of the positive innovations.
    Figure 5.  Mean innovation life plot of the negative innovations.

    From Figures 4 and 5, the selected threshold is estimated to be approximately 2. The parameter stability plots are further employed to explore the selected threshold values. Figures 6 and 7 show the parameter stability plots for the standardized innovations.

    Figure 6.  Parameter stability plot for the positive innovations.
    Figure 7.  Parameter stability plot for the negative innovations.

    From Figures 6 and 7, the stable region is from the threshold values 1.1 to 1.4, respectively. The Pareto quantile plots are employed to confirm the threshold values. Figures 8 and 9 show the Pareto quantile plot for the standardized innovations.

    Figure 8.  Pareto quantile plot for the positive innovations.
    Figure 9.  Pareto quantile plot for the negative innovations.

    From Figures 8 and 9, the threshold for zt is u = exp (0.1782694) = 1.1951 and zt, u = exp (0.3915099) = 1.4792. The selected threshold values are used to estimate the ML parameter estimates of the GPD. Table 8 shows the ML parameter estimates of the GPD.

    Table 8.  ML parameter estimates of the GPD.
    Threshold
    (u)
    No of violations
    (Y)
    (ˆξ)
    SE(ˆξ)
    (ˆθ)
    SE(ˆθ)
    zt 1.1951 438 −0.0459
    (0.0442)
    0.4282
    (0.0279)
    zt 1.4792 326 −0.0351
    (0.0544)
    0.5989
    (0.0465)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 8, the number of observations above the threshold values is 438 and 326, respectively. These values are higher than those found in the studies by Naradh et al. (2021), Omari et al. (2020) and Ilupeju (2016), due to a larger sample period analyzed in this study. The scale parameters are significant and positive, in line with Naradh et al. (2021), Omari et al. (2020) and Ilupeju (2016). The shape parameters are negative, ˆξ<0, indicating a thin-tailed Weibull distribution. This finding contrasts with the empirical expectations of an emerging market and the result of Naradh et al. (2021). However, such an exception was also found in the studies by Omari et al. (2020) and Ilupeju (2016). Figures 10 and 11 show the model diagnostics of the GPD for the standardized innovations.

    Figure 10.  GPD diagnostic plots of the positive innovations.
    Figure 11.  GPD diagnostic plots of the negative innovations.

    From Figures 10 and 11, the PP plot shows that the empirical and theoretical distributions are in alignment. However, similar to the case of the GEVD above, the data points from the QQ plots show deviation from the theoretical straight line, especially for the negative innovations. From the return level plots, the data points either lie on or fall within the confidence bands, indicating an adequate fit. The density plot confirms the adequate fit as most points lie along the GPD. In conclusion, the model diagnostics of the EVT distributions, the GEVD and GPD, are in line with Naradh et al. (2021), Khan et al. (2021) and Ilupeju (2016).

    Table 9 shows the ML parameter estimates of the Stable distribution and the normality test statistics.

    Table 9.  ML parameter estimates of the Stable distribution.
    ˆα ˆv ˆθ ˆλ AD test
    (p-value)
    KS test
    (p-value)
    1.9104 −0.9571 0.6742 0.0715 1.3003
    (0.2323)
    0.0137
    (0.3993)

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 9, skewness represented by ˆv is negative, indicating that the innovations are negatively skewed. Since ˆα < 2, this results in an infinite variance and heavy tails, in line with empirical expectations. Both normality tests show that the innovations follow a normal, or rather, a Stable distribution. Hence, Stable is a robust fitting probability distribution to the ALSI returns. Figures 12 and 13 show the graphical model diagnostics of the Stable distribution.

    Figure 12.  Stable density plot of the innovations.
    Figure 13.  Variance stabilized PP plot of the innovations.

    From Figure 12, there appears to be an almost perfect fit between the empirical and theoretical fit of the innovations to the Stable distribution. Figure 13 confirms an adequate fitting distribution by the empirical and theoretical lines being in perfect alignment. The optimal fit of Stable is in line with Naradh et al. (2021), Bautista and Mora (2020), Bautista and Mata (2020) and Ilupeju (2016).

    Following several studies, such as Kuang (2020), Ayed et al. (2020) and Echaust and Just (2020), the forecast power of the VaR estimates of EGARCH-M with the different innovation distributions are analyzed by the backtesting procedure, which consists of the VR, Kupiec unconditional test, Christoffersen conditional test and VaR duration test. Table 10 shows the relevant VaR estimates for different levels (1, 2.5, 97.5 and 99%).

    Table 10.  VaR estimates for the different levels.
    Position Short Long
    Level 1% 2.5% 97.5% 99%
    EGARCH-M PIVD −2.6831 −2.1488 1.8037 2.1325
    EGARCH-M GEVD −0.2479 −0.0792 2.4455 2.7275
    EGARCH-M GPD 0.0060 0.0152 1.4532 1.7777
    EGARCH-M Stable −2.7607 −2.1076 1.8418 2.1738

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 10, the highest VaR estimates are produced by the GPD and GEVD at the short and long positions, respectively. In contrast, the robust VaR estimates are produced by Stable at 1%, PIVD at 2.5% and the GPD at the long position. Overall, GEVD has the highest VaR estimate and Stable the lowest. The EVT distributions are considered inadequate in fitting the innovations for the short position. Khan et al. (2021) examined only the long position and found the highest VaR estimate for the GPD at 95% in the Indian stock market. With respect to South Africa, this finding is in line with Naradh et al. (2021), who found that the GPD had the highest VaR estimate, in the short position and long position, for the JSE Mining Index and ALSI, respectively.

    This finding supports Ilupeju (2016), who found the highest VaR estimate for the GPD at 1%, but contrasts to GEVD which had the lowest VaR estimates at 2.5%. In the study by Bautista and Mata (2020), the authors found that Stable had the lowest VaR estimates at the examined long position for the Mexican Stock Exchange. Naradh et al. (2021) also found Stable to be optimal at the short and long positions. This contrasts with Ilupeju (2016), who found Stable with the highest VaR with the exception of the 1% level. The VaR estimates are examined by the backtesting procedure, as recommended by the Basel Accord, to determine the optimal innovation distribution. Table 11 shows the VR estimates for the different levels.

    Table 11.  VR estimates for the different levels.
    Position Short Long
    Level 1% 2.5% 97.5% 99%
    EGARCH-M PIVD 0.9286 0.9811 0.9998 1.0005
    EGARCH-M GEVD 42.5476 19.7264 1.0203 1.0090
    EGARCH-M GPD 53.0476 21.1981 0.9681 0.9829
    EGARCH-M Stable 0.8333 1.0283 1.0024 1.0021

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Table 11, the majority of the VRs indicate an optimal forecast since they are between 0.8 and 1.2. The GEVD and GPD in the short position are the exceptions, as the VRs are well above 1, indicating that risk has been overestimated. This is in line with the robustness of the EVT distributions as indicated by the VaR estimates above. Tables 12 and 13 show the p-values of the Kupiec unconditional and Christoffersen conditional joint tests, respectively. Table 14 shows the p-values of the VaR duration-based test.

    Table 12.  p-values of the unconditional test.
    Position Short Long
    Level 1% 2.5% 97.5% 99%
    EGARCH-M PIVD 0.5832 0.8225 0.8658 0.8149
    EGARCH-M GEVD X X - < 0.0001
    EGARCH-M GPD X X X -
    EGARCH-M Stable 0.2324 0.7898 0.3552 0.1741
    NOTE: "X" = VaR-GARCH-M models that are inadequate, "-" = Kupiec unconditional test statistic is rejected at the 5% level of significance due to an underestimation of the realized values

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 13.  p-values of the conditional test.
    Position Short Long
    Level 1% 2.5% 97.5% 99%
    EGARCH-M PIVD 0.5995 0.9364 0.4592 0.6526
    EGARCH-M GEVD X X - < 0.0001
    EGARCH-M GPD X X X -
    EGARCH-M Stable 0.3665 0.9577 0.4222 0.3018
    NOTE: "X" = VaR-GARCH-M models that are inadequate, "-" = Christoffersen conditional joint test statistic is rejected at the 5% level of significance due to an underestimation of the realized values

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Table 14.  p-values of the duration-based test.
    Position Short Long
    Level 1% 2.5% 97.5% 99%
    EGARCH-M PIVD 0.9546 0.8800 - -
    EGARCH-M GEVD - - - -
    EGARCH-M GPD - - - -
    EGARCH-M Stable 0.6607 0.8288 - -
    NOTE: "-" = duration-based test is rejected at the 5% level of significance due to an underestimation of the realized values

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    From Tables 12 and 13, it can be seen that the values of the conditional joint test and unconditional test are present for the same levels. Both the PIVD and Stable passed the conditional and unconditional coverage tests at the given levels of 1, 2.5, 97.5 and 99%. The optimal performance of Stable is in line with Naradh et al. (2021), Bautista and Mata (2020) and Ilupeju (2016). However, since the p-values for the PIVD are the highest relative to Stable, PIVD is the optimal innovation distribution. Model inadequacy is indicated for the remaining levels, as well as both the EVT distributions for the overall short and long position, due to an over or underestimation of the realized values. The null hypothesis is rejected for the long position of the GEVD and 99% level of GPD, consolidating model inadequacy of the EVT distributions.

    From Table 14, the null hypothesis that the time between violations has no memory is rejected for all the innovation distributions of the long position. The same decision is made for both the GEVD and GPD in the short position, meaning that the EVT innovation distributions are incorrectly specified. The null is not rejected for the levels 1 and 2.5%, indicating model adequacy, where the majority of the p-values for the PIVD are higher than Stable.

    In conclusion of the backtesting procedure, the PIVD is the optimal innovation distribution due to higher p-values relative to Stable and the EVT distributions which are found to be inadequate. The outperformance of the PIVD and Stable compared to the EVT distributions are in line with Naradh et al. (2021), Kuang (2020) and Ilupeju (2016). This is in contrast to Khan et al. (2021), who concluded the GPD is efficient and Omari et al. (2020), who concluded that the GARCH approach in the context of the EVT distributions is optimal. The sample periods used in the study by Khan et al. (2021) and Omari et al. (2020), were less than a year and fourteen and a half years, respectively. Therefore, the EVT distributions are considered more optimal in studies with smaller sample periods. In addition, it is vital to consider several innovation distributions and the backtesting procedure to determine which distribution optimizes the tails of any GARCH model.

    The only known study, to the best of the authors knowledge, to investigate a different innovation distribution (Skewed GED) in the context of GARCH-M, was by Delis et al. (2021). Therefore, this was the first study, on a local and international level, to investigate different nonnormal innovation distributions in combination with GARCH-M type models. The aim was to investigate the optimal GARCH-M model and innovation distribution to determine the risk-return relationship. The primary aim was to determine the optimal GARCH-M type model. This study found EGARCH-M as the optimal model, in line with Naradh et al. (2021), Saddah and Sitanggang (2020) and Omari et al. (2020). More specifically, EGARCH-M Skew-t was found to be optimal. However, the innovations failed to capture asymmetry, in line with previous South African studies by Mangani (2008), Mandimika and Chinzara (2012), Ilupeju (2016) and Dwarika et al. (2021). Therefore, this study employed more robust innovation distributions, which led to the secondary aim, which was to find an innovation distribution to optimize the GARCH-M model tails, i.e., optimally capture risk.

    The nonnormal innovation distributions employed were the PIVD, GEVD, GPD and Stable. These distributions were considered more robust and flexible because they have the ability to take into account heavy tails and other higher moment properties such as skewness and excess kurtosis. This is relevant in the case of emerging markets, such as South Africa, which are characterized by heavy tails due to high levels of volatility. Model diagnostics revealed that the employment of the different innovation distributions was robust as there were no major deviations between the empirical and theoretical distributions. As the Basel Accord I recommended, more rigorous testing, VaR and backtesting methods were employed. From the VaR and backtesting analysis, it was found that the EVT distributions, the GEVD and GPD, were found to be the least robust relative to Stable and the PIVD. While the results of Stable and the PIVD were close, the PIVD was the optimal innovation distribution as it had the higher p-values.

    Therefore, investors, risk managers and policymakers would opt to use the EGARCH-M in combination with the PIVD when modelling the risk-return relationship in the South African market. The robustness of EGARCH-M is supported by previous studies by Dwarika et al. (2021), Naradh et al. (2021), Saddah and Sitanggang (2020) and Omari et al. (2020). Stable was found to be an optimal innovation distribution by Bautista and Mora (2020), Bautista and Mata (2020) Naradh et al. (2021) and Ilupeju (2016). However, in the context of the risk-return relationship, this study found PIVD to be optimal, followed by Stable. This is in line with the study conducted by Kuang (2020), who found that the PIVD outperformed several other distributions, namely, the Stud-t, GEVD and GPD.

    The EVT distributions, the GEVD and GPD, were found to be suboptimal in this study, in line with Naradh et al. (2021), Kuang (2020) and Ilupeju (2016). Based on prior studies, Khan et al. (2021) and Omari et al. (2020), the EVT distributions were found to be optimal given that smaller sample periods were used. Thus, it would be optimal to consider several distributions to ensure an unbiased estimation of the most robust innovation distribution, irrespective of the sample period used in a study.

    To conclude, this study confirmed that the standard GARCH-M and conventional normal type innovation distributions are ineffective in fitting the asymmetric, volatile and random nature of financial data. It should be noted that this study focused on asymmetry and employed normality tests for the model diagnostics of the innovation distributions. Therefore, the first recommendation is to include heteroscedasticity and randomness tests to investigate other properties, such as the volatile and random nature of the innovations. In other words, to apply the complete risk check to the fitted innovation distributions. The second recommendation is to investigate the risk-return relationship using GARCH-M type models in direct combination with the more robust nonnormal innovation distributions. Finally, to explore other nonnormal innovation distributions in the context of GARCH-M, that were not included in the scope of this study, such as the Inverse Gaussian, Generalized Hyperbolic, Johnson's SU and Skewed GED.

    The author would like to thank Prof. John Nolan for the grant received for the STABLE package in R (http://www.robustanalysis.com/).

    The author declares no conflict of interest.

    The secondary price dataset used in this study can be obtained from the IRESS database.


    Acknowledgments



    Geovanni Alberto Ruiz-Romero has a scholarship from CONAHCyT-CVU 642857 and is a graduate student in Life Sciences at CICESE. This work was made possible by economic support from grants 685-110 from CICESE and “Ciencia de Frontera” CF-6391-2019 from CONAHCyT.

    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare that they do not have conflicts of interest in the creation of this article.

    [1] DeFronzo RA, Ferrannini E, Groop L, et al. (2015) Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Dis Primers 1: 15019. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2015.19
    [2] Ley SH, Hamdy O, Mohan V, et al. (2014) Prevention and management of type 2 diabetes: Dietary components and nutritional strategies. Lancet 383: 1999-2007. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60613-9
    [3] Federation ID (2021) IDF diabetes atlas. Brussels, Belgium: International Diabetes Federation. Available from: https://diabetesatlas.org/.
    [4] Pinti MV, Fink GK, Hathaway QA, et al. (2019) Mitochondrial dysfunction in type 2 diabetes mellitus: an organ-based analysis. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 316: E268-E285. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00314.2018
    [5] Duranova H, Valkova V, Knazicka Z, et al. (2020) Mitochondria: A worthwhile object for ultrastructural qualitative characterization and quantification of cells at physiological and pathophysiological states using conventional transmission electron microscopy. Acta Histochem 122: 151646. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acthis.2020.151646
    [6] Spinelli JB, Haigis MC (2018) The multifaceted contributions of mitochondria to cellular metabolism. Nat Cell Biol 20: 745-754. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41556-018-0124-1
    [7] Larsen S, Nielsen J, Hansen CN, et al. (2012) Biomarkers of mitochondrial content in skeletal muscle of healthy young human subjects. J Physiol 590: 3349-3360. https://doi.org/10.1113/jphysiol.2012.230185
    [8] Lin CC, Cheng TL, Tsai WH, et al. (2012) Loss of the respiratory enzyme citrate synthase directly links the Warburg effect to tumor malignancy. Sci Rep 2: 785. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep00785
    [9] Sazanov LA (2015) A giant molecular proton pump: Structure and mechanism of respiratory complex I. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 16: 375-388. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm3997
    [10] Al Rasheed MRH, Tarjan G (2018) Succinate dehydrogenase complex: An updated review. Arch Pathol Lab Med 142: 1564-1570. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2017-0285-RS
    [11] Neupane P, Bhuju S, Thapa N, et al. (2019) ATP synthase: Structure, function and inhibition. Biomol Concepts 10: 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1515/bmc-2019-0001
    [12] Prasun P (2020) Role of mitochondria in pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus. J Diabetes Metab Disord 19: 2017-2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40200-020-00679-x
    [13] Russell OM, Gorman GS, Lightowlers RN, et al. (2020) Mitochondrial diseases: Hope for the Future. Cell 181: 168-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.02.051
    [14] Miller WL, Auchus RJ (2011) The molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology of human steroidogenesis and its disorders. Endocr Rev 32: 81-151. https://doi.org/10.1210/er.2010-0013
    [15] Dard L, Blanchard W, Hubert C, et al. (2020) Mitochondrial functions and rare diseases. Mol Aspects Med 71: 100842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mam.2019.100842
    [16] Dong H, Tsai SY (2023) Mitochondrial properties in skeletal muscle fiber. Cells 12: 2183. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12172183
    [17] Nunnari J, Suomalainen A (2012) Mitochondria: In sickness and in health. Cell 148: 1145-1159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.035
    [18] Popov LD (2020) Mitochondrial biogenesis: An update. J Cell Mol Med 24: 4892-4899. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.15194
    [19] Barshad G, Marom S, Cohen T, et al. (2018) Mitochondrial DNA transcription and its regulation: An evolutionary perspective. Trends Genet 34: 682-692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2018.05.009
    [20] Wang F, Zhang D, Zhang D, et al. (2021) Mitochondrial protein translation: Emerging roles and clinical significance in disease. Front Cell Dev Biol 9: 675465. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcell.2021.675465
    [21] Demishtein-Zohary K, Azem A (2017) The TIM23 mitochondrial protein import complex: Function and dysfunction. Cell Tissue Res 367: 33-41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00441-016-2486-7
    [22] Palikaras K, Lionaki E, Tavernarakis N (2015) Balancing mitochondrial biogenesis and mitophagy to maintain energy metabolism homeostasis. Cell Death Differ 22: 1399-1401. https://doi.org/10.1038/cdd.2015.86
    [23] Ding Q, Qi Y, Tsang SY (2021) Mitochondrial biogenesis, mitochondrial dynamics, and mitophagy in the maturation of cardiomyocytes. Cells 10: 2463. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells10092463
    [24] Zhang B, Pan C, Feng C, et al. (2022) Role of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species in homeostasis regulation. Redox Rep 27: 45-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510002.2022.2046423
    [25] Schieber M, Chandel NS (2014) ROS function in redox signaling and oxidative stress. Curr Biol 24: R453-R462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2014.03.034
    [26] Cox AG, Winterbourn CC, Hampton MB (2009) Mitochondrial peroxiredoxin involvement in antioxidant defence and redox signalling. Biochem J 425: 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1042/BJ20091541
    [27] Ristow M, Schmeisser K (2014) Mitohormesis: Promoting health and lifespan by increased levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS). Dose Response 12: 288-341. https://doi.org/10.2203/dose-response.13-035.Ristow
    [28] Zarse K, Schmeisser S, Groth M, et al. (2012) Impaired insulin/IGF1 signaling extends life span by promoting mitochondrial L-proline catabolism to induce a transient ROS signal. Cell Metab 15: 451-465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2012.02.013
    [29] Rovira-Llopis S, Banuls C, Diaz-Morales N, et al. (2017) Mitochondrial dynamics in type 2 diabetes: Pathophysiological implications. Redox Biol 11: 637-645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.redox.2017.01.013
    [30] de Brito OM, Scorrano L (2008) Mitofusin 2 tethers endoplasmic reticulum to mitochondria. Nature 456: 605-610. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07534
    [31] Tubbs E, Theurey P, Vial G, et al. (2014) Mitochondria-associated endoplasmic reticulum membrane (MAM) integrity is required for insulin signaling and is implicated in hepatic insulin resistance. Diabetes 63: 3279-3294. https://doi.org/10.2337/db13-1751
    [32] Head B, Griparic L, Amiri M, et al. (2009) Inducible proteolytic inactivation of OPA1 mediated by the OMA1 protease in mammalian cells. J Cell Biol 187: 959-966. https://doi.org/10.1083/jcb.200906083
    [33] Consolato F, Maltecca F, Tulli S, et al. (2018) m-AAA and i-AAA complexes coordinate to regulate OMA1, the stress-activated supervisor of mitochondrial dynamics. J Cell Sci 131: jcs213546. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.213546
    [34] Nan J, Nan C, Ye J, et al. (2019) EGCG protects cardiomyocytes against hypoxia-reperfusion injury through inhibition of OMA1 activation. J Cell Sci 132: jcs220871. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.220871
    [35] Otera H, Mihara K (2011) Molecular mechanisms and physiologic functions of mitochondrial dynamics. J Biochem 149: 241-251. https://doi.org/10.1093/jb/mvr002
    [36] Loson OC, Song Z, Chen H, et al. (2013) Fis1, Mff, MiD49, and MiD51 mediate Drp1 recruitment in mitochondrial fission. Mol Biol Cell 24: 659-667. https://doi.org/10.1091/mbc.E12-10-0721
    [37] Lackner LL (2014) Shaping the dynamic mitochondrial network. BMC Biol 12: 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7007-12-35
    [38] Denton RM (2009) Regulation of mitochondrial dehydrogenases by calcium ions. Biochim Biophys Acta 1787: 1309-1316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2009.01.005
    [39] Gellerich FN, Gizatullina Z, Trumbeckaite S, et al. (2010) The regulation of OXPHOS by extramitochondrial calcium. Biochim Biophys Acta 1797: 1018-1027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbabio.2010.02.005
    [40] Jana F, Bustos G, Rivas J, et al. (2019) Complex I and II are required for normal mitochondrial Ca2+ homeostasis. Mitochondrion 49: 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mito.2019.07.004
    [41] Balderas E, Eberhardt DR, Lee S, et al. (2022) Mitochondrial calcium uniporter stabilization preserves energetic homeostasis during complex I impairment. Nat Commun 13: 2769. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30236-4
    [42] Noyola-Martinez N, Halhali A, Barrera D (2019) Steroid hormones and pregnancy. Gynecol Endocrinol 35: 376-384. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2018.1564742
    [43] Russell JK, Jones CK, Newhouse PA (2019) The role of estrogen in brain and cognitive aging. Neurotherapeutics 16: 649-665. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13311-019-00766-9
    [44] Soria-Jasso LE, Carino-Cortes R, Munoz-Perez VM, et al. (2019) Beneficial and deleterious effects of female sex hormones, oral contraceptives, and phytoestrogens by immunomodulation on the liver. Int J Mol Sci 20: 4694. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20194694
    [45] Bernasochi GB, Bell JR, Simpson ER, et al. (2019) Impact of estrogens on the regulation of white, beige, and brown adipose tissue depots. Compr Physiol 9: 457-475. https://doi.org/10.1002/cphy.c180009
    [46] Giatti S, Garcia-Segura LM, Barreto GE, et al. (2019) Neuroactive steroids, neurosteroidogenesis and sex. Prog Neurobiol 176: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pneurobio.2018.06.007
    [47] Zhang H, Cui D, Wang B, et al. (2007) Pharmacokinetic drug interactions involving 17alpha-ethinylestradiol: A new look at an old drug. Clin Pharmacokinet 46: 133-157. https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200746020-00003
    [48] Kuhl H (2005) Pharmacology of estrogens and progestogens: Influence of different routes of administration. Climacteric 8: 3-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13697130500148875
    [49] Kumar R, Zakharov MN, Khan SH, et al. (2011) The dynamic structure of the estrogen receptor. J Amino Acids 2011: 812540. https://doi.org/10.4061/2011/812540
    [50] Gaudet HM, Cheng SB, Christensen EM, et al. (2015) The G-protein coupled estrogen receptor, GPER: The inside and inside-out story. Mol Cell Endocrinol 418: 207-219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2015.07.016
    [51] Yasar P, Ayaz G, User SD, et al. (2017) Molecular mechanism of estrogen-estrogen receptor signaling. Reprod Med Biol 16: 4-20. https://doi.org/10.1002/rmb2.12006
    [52] Fuentes N, Silveyra P (2019) Estrogen receptor signaling mechanisms. Adv Protein Chem Struct Biol 116: 135-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apcsb.2019.01.001
    [53] Li X, Zhang S, Safe S (2006) Activation of kinase pathways in MCF-7 cells by 17beta-estradiol and structurally diverse estrogenic compounds. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 98: 122-132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.08.018
    [54] Alvarez-Delgado C (2022) The role of mitochondria and mitochondrial hormone receptors on the bioenergetic adaptations to lactation. Mol Cell Endocrinol 551: 111661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2022.111661
    [55] Chen JQ, Yager JD, Russo J (2005) Regulation of mitochondrial respiratory chain structure and function by estrogens/estrogen receptors and potential physiological/pathophysiological implications. Biochim Biophys Acta 1746: 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2005.08.001
    [56] Escande A, Pillon A, Servant N, et al. (2006) Evaluation of ligand selectivity using reporter cell lines stably expressing estrogen receptor alpha or beta. Biochem Pharmacol 71: 1459-1469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcp.2006.02.002
    [57] Jeyakumar M, Carlson KE, Gunther JR, et al. (2011) Exploration of dimensions of estrogen potency: Parsing ligand binding and coactivator binding affinities. J Biol Chem 286: 12971-12982. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M110.205112
    [58] Monje P, Boland R (2002) Expression and cellular localization of naturally occurring beta estrogen receptors in uterine and mammary cell lines. J Cell Biochem 86: 136-144. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.10193
    [59] Chen J, Li Y, Lavigne JA, et al. (1999) Increased mitochondrial superoxide production in rat liver mitochondria, rat hepatocytes, and HepG2 cells following ethinyl estradiol treatment. Toxicol Sci 51: 224-235. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/51.2.224
    [60] Solakidi S, Psarra AMG, Sekeris CE (2005) Differential subcellular distribution of estrogen receptor isoforms: localization of ERalpha in the nucleoli and ERbeta in the mitochondria of human osteosarcoma SaOS-2 and hepatocarcinoma HepG2 cell lines. Biochim Biophys Acta 1745: 382-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2005.05.010
    [61] Cammarata PR, Chu S, Moor A, et al. (2004) Subcellular distribution of native estrogen receptor alpha and beta subtypes in cultured human lens epithelial cells. Exp Eye Res 78: 861-871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exer.2003.09.027
    [62] Chen JQ, Delannoy M, Cooke C, et al. (2004) Mitochondrial localization of ERalpha and ERbeta in human MCF7 cells. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 286: E1011-E1022. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00508.2003
    [63] Chen JQ, Eshete M, Alworth WL, et al. (2004) Binding of MCF-7 cell mitochondrial proteins and recombinant human estrogen receptors alpha and beta to human mitochondrial DNA estrogen response elements. J Cell Biochem 93: 358-373. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcb.20178
    [64] Chen JQ, Yager JD (2004) Estrogen's effects on mitochondrial gene expression: mechanisms and potential contributions to estrogen carcinogenesis. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1028: 258-272. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1322.030
    [65] Alvarez-Delgado C, Mendoza-Rodriguez CA, Picazo O, et al. (2010) Different expression of alpha and beta mitochondrial estrogen receptors in the aging rat brain: interaction with respiratory complex V. Exp Gerontol 45: 580-585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2010.01.015
    [66] Chen JQ, Cammarata PR, Baines CP, et al. (2009) Regulation of mitochondrial respiratory chain biogenesis by estrogens/estrogen receptors and physiological, pathological and pharmacological implications. Biochim Biophys Acta 1793: 1540-1570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2009.06.001
    [67] Heine PA, Taylor JA, Iwamoto GA, et al. (2000) Increased adipose tissue in male and female estrogen receptor-alpha knockout mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 97: 12729-12734. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.97.23.12729
    [68] Musatov S, Chen W, Pfaff DW, et al. (2007) Silencing of estrogen receptor alpha in the ventromedial nucleus of hypothalamus leads to metabolic syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 2501-2506. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0610787104
    [69] Gao Q, Horvath TL (2008) Cross-talk between estrogen and leptin signaling in the hypothalamus. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 294: E817-E826. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.00733.2007
    [70] Foryst-Ludwig A, Clemenz M, Hohmann S, et al. (2008) Metabolic actions of estrogen receptor beta (ERbeta) are mediated by a negative cross-talk with PPARgamma. PLoS Genet 4: e1000108. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1000108
    [71] Torres MJ, Kew KA, Ryan TE, et al. (2018) 17beta-Estradiol directly lowers mitochondrial membrane microviscosity and improves bioenergetic function in skeletal muscle. Cell Metab 27: 167-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2017.10.003
    [72] Torres MJ, Ryan TE, Lin CT, et al. (2018) Impact of 17beta-estradiol on complex I kinetics and H2O2 production in liver and skeletal muscle mitochondria. J Biol Chem 293: 16889-16898. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.RA118.005148
    [73] Moreno AJM, Moreira PI, Custodio JBA, et al. (2013) Mechanism of inhibition of mitochondrial ATP synthase by 17beta-estradiol. J Bioenerg Biomembr 45: 261-270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10863-012-9497-1
    [74] Sastre J, Pallardo FV, Vina J (2003) The role of mitochondrial oxidative stress in aging. Free Radic Biol Med 35: 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0891-5849(03)00184-9
    [75] Borras C, Gambini J, Vina J (2007) Mitochondrial oxidant generation is involved in determining why females live longer than males. Front Biosci 12: 1008-1013. https://doi.org/10.2741/2120
    [76] Borras C, Gambini J, Gomez-Cabrera MC, et al. (2005) 17beta-oestradiol up-regulates longevity-related, antioxidant enzyme expression via the ERK1 and ERK2[MAPK]/NFkappaB cascade. Aging Cell 4: 113-118. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-9726.2005.00151.x
    [77] Borras C, Gambini J, Lopez-Grueso R, et al. (2010) Direct antioxidant and protective effect of estradiol on isolated mitochondria. Biochim Biophys Acta 1802: 205-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbadis.2009.09.007
    [78] La Colla A, Vasconsuelo A, Boland R (2013) Estradiol exerts antiapoptotic effects in skeletal myoblasts via mitochondrial PTP and MnSOD. J Endocrinol 216: 331-341. https://doi.org/10.1530/JOE-12-0486
    [79] Bauza-Thorbrugge M, Galmés-Pascual BM, Sbert-Roig M, et al. (2017) Antioxidant peroxiredoxin 3 expression is regulated by 17beta-estradiol in rat white adipose tissue. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 172: 9-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2017.05.008
    [80] Kalkhoran SB, Kararigas G (2022) Oestrogenic regulation of mitochondrial dynamics. Int J Mol Sci 23: 1118. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23031118
    [81] Tao Z, Cheng Z (2023) Hormonal regulation of metabolism-recent lessons learned from insulin and estrogen. Clin Sci (Lond) 137: 415-434. https://doi.org/10.1042/CS20210519
    [82] Sastre-Serra J, Nadal-Serrano M, Pons DG, et al. (2012) Mitochondrial dynamics is affected by 17beta-estradiol in the MCF-7 breast cancer cell line. Effects on fusion and fission related genes. Int J Biochem Cell Biol 44: 1901-1905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocel.2012.07.012
    [83] Castracani CC, Longhitano L, Distefano A, et al. (2020) Role of 17beta-estradiol on cell proliferation and mitochondrial fitness in glioblastoma cells. J Oncol 2020: 2314693. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/2314693
    [84] Satohisa S, Zhang HH, Feng L, et al. (2014) Endogenous NO upon estradiol-17beta stimulation and NO donor differentially regulate mitochondrial S-nitrosylation in endothelial cells. Endocrinology 155: 3005-3016. https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2013-2174
    [85] Zhou Z, Ribas V, Rajbhandari P, et al. (2018) Estrogen receptor α protects pancreatic beta-cells from apoptosis by preserving mitochondrial function and suppressing endoplasmic reticulum stress. J Biol Chem 293: 4735-4751. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M117.805069
    [86] Lobaton CD, Vay L, Hernandez-Sanmiguel E, et al. (2005) Modulation of mitochondrial Ca2+ uptake by estrogen receptor agonists and antagonists. Br J Pharmacol 145: 862-871. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjp.0706265
    [87] Vasan N, Toska E, Scaltriti M (2019) Overview of the relevance of PI3K pathway in HR-positive breast cancer. Ann Oncol 30: x3-x11. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdz281
    [88] Marchi S, Corricelli M, Branchini A, et al. (2019) Akt-mediated phosphorylation of MICU1 regulates mitochondrial Ca2+ levels and tumor growth. EMBO J 38: e99435. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj.201899435
    [89] Qin S, Yin J, Huang K (2016) Free fatty acids increase intracellular lipid accumulation and oxidative stress by modulating PPARalpha and SREBP-1c in L-02 cells. Lipids 51: 797-805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11745-016-4160-y
    [90] Colak E, Pap D (2021) The role of oxidative stress in the development of obesity and obesity-related metabolic disorders. J Med Biochem 40: 1-9. https://doi.org/10.5937/jomb0-24652
    [91] Petersen MC, Shulman GI (2018) Mechanisms of insulin action and insulin resistance. Physiol Rev 98: 2133-2223. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00063.2017
    [92] Kruger M, Kratchmarova I, Blagoev B, et al. (2008) Dissection of the insulin signaling pathway via quantitative phosphoproteomics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 105: 2451-2456. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0711713105
    [93] Taniguchi CM, Emanuelli B, Kahn CR (2006) Critical nodes in signalling pathways: insights into insulin action. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7: 85-96. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrm1837
    [94] Boura-Halfon S, Zick Y (2009) Phosphorylation of IRS proteins, insulin action, and insulin resistance. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 296: E581-E591. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.90437.2008
    [95] Petersen KF, Befroy D, Dufour S, et al. (2003) Mitochondrial dysfunction in the elderly: Possible role in insulin resistance. Science 300: 1140-1142. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1082889
    [96] Kelley DE, Goodpaster B, Wing RR, et al. (1999) Skeletal muscle fatty acid metabolism in association with insulin resistance, obesity, and weight loss. Am J Physiol 277: E1130-E1141. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.1999.277.6.E1130
    [97] Simoneau JA, Veerkamp JH, Turcotte LP, et al. (1999) Markers of capacity to utilize fatty acids in human skeletal muscle: relation to insulin resistance and obesity and effects of weight loss. FASEB J 13: 2051-2060. https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.13.14.2051
    [98] Kim JY, Hickner RC, Cortright RL, et al. (2000) Lipid oxidation is reduced in obese human skeletal muscle. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 279: E1039-E1044. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpendo.2000.279.5.E1039
    [99] Szendroedi J, Phielix E, Roden M (2011) The role of mitochondria in insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nat Rev Endocrinol 8: 92-103. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2011.138
    [100] San-Millan I (2023) The key role of mitochondrial function in health and disease. Antioxidants (Basel) 12: 782. https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox12040782
    [101] Morino K, Petersen KF, Dufour S, et al. (2005) Reduced mitochondrial density and increased IRS-1 serine phosphorylation in muscle of insulin-resistant offspring of type 2 diabetic parents. J Clin Invest 115: 3587-3593. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI25151
    [102] Ritov VB, Menshikova EV, He J, et al. (2005) Deficiency of subsarcolemmal mitochondria in obesity and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 54: 8-14. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.54.1.8
    [103] Chomentowski P, Coen PM, Radikova Z, et al. (2011) Skeletal muscle mitochondria in insulin resistance: differences in intermyofibrillar versus subsarcolemmal subpopulations and relationship to metabolic flexibility. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 96: 494-503. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2010-0822
    [104] Amati F, Dube JJ, Alvarez-Carnero E, et al. (2011) Skeletal muscle triglycerides, diacylglycerols, and ceramides in insulin resistance: Another paradox in endurance-trained athletes?. Diabetes 60: 2588-2597. https://doi.org/10.2337/db10-1221
    [105] Bergman BC, Goodpaster BH (2020) Exercise and muscle lipid content, composition, and localization: Influence on muscle insulin sensitivity. Diabetes 69: 848-858. https://doi.org/10.2337/dbi18-0042
    [106] Sergi D, Naumovski N, Heilbronn LK, et al. (2019) Mitochondrial (dys)function and insulin resistance: From pathophysiological molecular mechanisms to the impact of diet. Front Physiol 10: 532. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2019.00532
    [107] Holloszy JO (2009) Skeletal muscle “mitochondrial deficiency” does not mediate insulin resistance. Am J Clin Nutr 89: 463S-466S. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2008.26717C
    [108] Asmann YW, Stump CS, Short KR, et al. (2006) Skeletal muscle mitochondrial functions, mitochondrial DNA copy numbers, and gene transcript profiles in type 2 diabetic and nondiabetic subjects at equal levels of low or high insulin and euglycemia. Diabetes 55: 3309-3319. https://doi.org/10.2337/db05-1230
    [109] Mogensen M, Sahlin K, Fernstrom M, et al. (2007) Mitochondrial respiration is decreased in skeletal muscle of patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 56: 1592-1599. https://doi.org/10.2337/db06-0981
    [110] Phielix E, Schrauwen-Hinderling VB, Mensink M, et al. (2008) Lower intrinsic ADP-stimulated mitochondrial respiration underlies in vivo mitochondrial dysfunction in muscle of male type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes 57: 2943-2949. https://doi.org/10.2337/db08-0391
    [111] Koska J, Stefan N, Permana PA, et al. (2008) Increased fat accumulation in liver may link insulin resistance with subcutaneous abdominal adipocyte enlargement, visceral adiposity, and hypoadiponectinemia in obese individuals. Am J Clin Nutr 87: 295-302. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/87.2.295
    [112] Petersen KF, Dufour S, Befroy D, et al. (2005) Reversal of nonalcoholic hepatic steatosis, hepatic insulin resistance, and hyperglycemia by moderate weight reduction in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 54: 603-608. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.54.3.603
    [113] Zhang D, Liu ZX, Choi CS, et al. (2007) Mitochondrial dysfunction due to long-chain Acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency causes hepatic steatosis and hepatic insulin resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 17075-17080. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707060104
    [114] Zhang D, Christianson J, Liu ZX, et al. (2010) Resistance to high-fat diet-induced obesity and insulin resistance in mice with very long-chain acyl-CoA dehydrogenase deficiency. Cell Metab 11: 402-411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2010.03.012
    [115] Koliaki C, Szendroedi J, Kaul K, et al. (2015) Adaptation of hepatic mitochondrial function in humans with non-alcoholic fatty liver is lost in steatohepatitis. Cell Metab 21: 739-746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2015.04.004
    [116] Schmid AI, Szendroedi J, Chmelik M, et al. (2011) Liver ATP synthesis is lower and relates to insulin sensitivity in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 34: 448-453. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc10-1076
    [117] Gancheva S, Kahl S, Pesta D, et al. (2022) Impaired hepatic mitochondrial capacity in nonalcoholic steatohepatitis associated with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care 45: 928-937. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-1758
    [118] De Pauw A, Tejerina S, Raes M, et al. (2009) Mitochondrial (dys)function in adipocyte (de)differentiation and systemic metabolic alterations. Am J Pathol 175: 927-939. https://doi.org/10.2353/ajpath.2009.081155
    [119] Lee JH, Park A, Oh KJ, et al. (2019) The role of adipose tissue mitochondria: Regulation of mitochondrial function for the treatment of metabolic diseases. Int J Mol Sci 20: 4924. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20194924
    [120] Chattopadhyay M, Guhathakurta I, Behera P, et al. (2011) Mitochondrial bioenergetics is not impaired in nonobese subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Metabolism 60: 1702-1710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2011.04.015
    [121] Heinonen S, Buzkova J, Muniandy M, et al. (2015) Impaired mitochondrial biogenesis in adipose tissue in acquired obesity. Diabetes 64: 3135-3145. https://doi.org/10.2337/db14-1937
    [122] Bohm A, Keuper M, Meile T, et al. (2020) Increased mitochondrial respiration of adipocytes from metabolically unhealthy obese compared to healthy obese individuals. Sci Rep 10: 12407. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-69016-9
    [123] Meister BM, Hong SG, Shin J, et al. (2022) Healthy versus unhealthy adipose tissue expansion: The role of exercise. J Obes Metab Syndr 31: 37-50. https://doi.org/10.7570/jomes21096
    [124] Choo HJ, Kim JH, Kwon OB, et al. (2006) Mitochondria are impaired in the adipocytes of type 2 diabetic mice. Diabetologia 49: 784-791. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-006-0170-2
    [125] Rong JX, Qiu Y, Hansen MK, et al. (2007) Adipose mitochondrial biogenesis is suppressed in db/db and high-fat diet-fed mice and improved by rosiglitazone. Diabetes 56: 1751-1760. https://doi.org/10.2337/db06-1135
    [126] Komatsu M, Takei M, Ishii H, et al. (2013) Glucose-stimulated insulin secretion: A newer perspective. J Diabetes Investig 4: 511-516. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdi.12094
    [127] Anello M, Lupi R, Spampinato D, et al. (2005) Functional and morphological alterations of mitochondria in pancreatic beta cells from type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetologia 48: 282-289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-004-1627-9
    [128] Saxena R, de Bakker PI, Singer K, et al. (2006) Comprehensive association testing of common mitochondrial DNA variation in metabolic disease. Am J Hum Genet 79: 54-61. https://doi.org/10.1086/504926
    [129] Koeck T, Olsson AH, Nitert MD, et al. (2011) A common variant in TFB1M is associated with reduced insulin secretion and increased future risk of type 2 diabetes. Cell Metab 13: 80-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2010.12.007
    [130] Sharoyko VV, Abels M, Sun J, et al. (2014) Loss of TFB1M results in mitochondrial dysfunction that leads to impaired insulin secretion and diabetes. Hum Mol Genet 23: 5733-5749. https://doi.org/10.1093/hmg/ddu288
    [131] Sidarala V, Pearson GL, Parekh VS, et al. (2020) Mitophagy protects β cells from inflammatory damage in diabetes. JCI Insight 5: e141138. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.141138
    [132] Vezza T, Diaz-Pozo P, Canet F, et al. (2022) The role of mitochondrial dynamic dysfunction in age-associated type 2 diabetes. World J Mens Health 40: 399-411. https://doi.org/10.5534/wjmh.210146
    [133] Shenouda SM, Widlansky ME, Chen K, et al. (2011) Altered mitochondrial dynamics contributes to endothelial dysfunction in diabetes mellitus. Circulation 124: 444-453. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.014506
    [134] Hu Q, Zhang H, Cortes NG, et al. (2020) Increased Drp1 acetylation by lipid overload induces cardiomyocyte death and heart dysfunction. Circ Res 126: 456-470. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.119.315252
    [135] Sidarala V, Zhu J, Levi-D'Ancona E, et al. (2022) Mitofusin 1 and 2 regulation of mitochondrial DNA content is a critical determinant of glucose homeostasis. Nat Commun 13: 2340. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-29945-7
    [136] Tubbs E, Chanon S, Robert M, et al. (2018) Disruption of mitochondria-associated endoplasmic reticulum membrane (MAM) integrity contributes to muscle insulin resistance in mice and humans. Diabetes 67: 636-650. https://doi.org/10.2337/db17-0316
    [137] Nieblas B, Perez-Trevino P, Garcia N (2022) Role of mitochondria-associated endoplasmic reticulum membranes in insulin sensitivity, energy metabolism, and contraction of skeletal muscle. Front Mol Biosci 9: 959844. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2022.959844
    [138] Dror V, Kalynyak TB, Bychkivska Y, et al. (2008) Glucose and endoplasmic reticulum calcium channels regulate HIF-1beta via presenilin in pancreatic beta-cells. J Biol Chem 283: 9909-9916. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M710601200
    [139] Koval OM, Nguyen EK, Mittauer DJ, et al. (2023) Regulation of smooth muscle cell proliferation by mitochondrial Ca2+ in type 2 Diabetes. Int J Mol Sci 24: 12897. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241612897
    [140] Janssen I, Powell LH, Crawford S, et al. (2008) Menopause and the metabolic syndrome: The study of women's health across the nation. Arch Intern Med 168: 1568-1575. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.168.14.1568
    [141] Oya J, Nakagami T, Yamamoto Y, et al. (2014) Effects of age on insulin resistance and secretion in subjects without diabetes. Int Med 53: 941-947. https://doi.org/10.2169/internalmedicine.53.1580
    [142] Pu D, Tan R, Yu Q, et al. (2017) Metabolic syndrome in menopause and associated factors: A meta-analysis. Climacteric 20: 583-591. https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2017.1386649
    [143] Korljan B, Bagatin J, Kokic S, et al. (2010) The impact of hormone replacement therapy on metabolic syndrome components in perimenopausal women. Med Hypotheses 74: 162-163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2009.07.008
    [144] Lobo RA (2017) Hormone-replacement therapy: Current thinking. Nat Rev Endocrinol 13: 220-231. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2016.164
    [145] Bitoska I, Krstevska B, Milenkovic T, et al. (2016) Effects of hormone replacement therapy on insulin resistance in postmenopausal diabetic women. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 4: 83-88. https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2016.024
    [146] Weigt C, Hertrampf T, Flenker U, et al. (2015) Effects of estradiol, estrogen receptor subtype-selective agonists and genistein on glucose metabolism in leptin resistant female Zucker diabetic fatty (ZDF) rats. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 154: 12-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2015.06.002
    [147] Ribas V, Drew BG, Zhou Z, et al. (2016) Skeletal muscle action of estrogen receptor alpha is critical for the maintenance of mitochondrial function and metabolic homeostasis in females. Sci Transl Med 8: 334ra354. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aad3815
    [148] Diaz A, Lopez-Grueso R, Gambini J, et al. (2019) Sex differences in age-associated type 2 diabetes in rats-role of estrogens and oxidative stress. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2019: 6734836. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/6734836
    [149] Le May C, Chu K, Hu M, et al. (2006) Estrogens protect pancreatic beta-cells from apoptosis and prevent insulin-deficient diabetes mellitus in mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103: 9232-9237. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0602956103
    [150] Alonso-Magdalena P, Ropero AB, Carrera MP, et al. (2008) Pancreatic insulin content regulation by the estrogen receptor ER alpha. PLoS One 3: e2069. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002069
    [151] Kilic G, Alvarez-Mercado AI, Zarrouki B, et al. (2014) The islet estrogen receptor-α is induced by hyperglycemia and protects against oxidative stress-induced insulin-deficient diabetes. PLoS One 9: e87941. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087941
    [152] Liu S, Le May C, Wong WPS, et al. (2009) Importance of extranuclear estrogen receptor-alpha and membrane G protein-coupled estrogen receptor in pancreatic islet survival. Diabetes 58: 2292-2302. https://doi.org/10.2337/db09-0257
    [153] Hevener A, Reichart D, Janez A, et al. (2002) Female rats do not exhibit free fatty acid-induced insulin resistance. Diabetes 51: 1907-1912. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.51.6.1907
    [154] Camporez JP, Lyu K, Goldberg EL, et al. (2019) Anti-inflammatory effects of oestrogen mediate the sexual dimorphic response to lipid-induced insulin resistance. J Physiol 597: 3885-3903. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP277270
    [155] Gonzalez-Granillo M, Savva C, Li X, et al. (2019) ERβ activation in obesity improves whole body metabolism via adipose tissue function and enhanced mitochondria biogenesis. Mol Cell Endocrinol 479: 147-158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mce.2018.10.007
    [156] Galmes-Pascual BM, Martinez-Cignoni MR, Moran-Costoya A, et al. (2020) 17β-estradiol ameliorates lipotoxicity-induced hepatic mitochondrial oxidative stress and insulin resistance. Free Radic Biol Med 150: 148-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2020.02.016
    [157] Nauck MA, Vardarli I, Deacon CF, et al. (2011) Secretion of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) in type 2 diabetes: What is up, what is down?. Diabetologia 54: 10-18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-010-1896-4
    [158] Drucker DJ, Nauck MA (2006) The incretin system: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in type 2 diabetes. Lancet 368: 1696-1705. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69705-5
    [159] Buteau J (2008) GLP-1 receptor signaling: effects on pancreatic beta-cell proliferation and survival. Diabetes Metab 34: S73-S77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1262-3636(08)73398-6
    [160] Tiano JP, Tate CR, Yang BS, et al. (2015) Effect of targeted estrogen delivery using glucagon-like peptide-1 on insulin secretion, insulin sensitivity and glucose homeostasis. Sci Rep 5: 10211. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep10211
    [161] Fuselier T, de Sa PM, Qadir MMF, et al. (2022) Efficacy of glucagon-like peptide-1 and estrogen dual agonist in pancreatic islets protection and pre-clinical models of insulin-deficient diabetes. Cell Rep Med 3: 100598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xcrm.2022.100598
    [162] Finan B, Yang B, Ottaway N, et al. (2012) Targeted estrogen delivery reverses the metabolic syndrome. Nat Med 18: 1847-1856. https://doi.org/10.1038/nm.3009
    [163] Jiang Q, Yin J, Chen J, et al. (2020) Mitochondria-targeted antioxidants: A step towards disease treatment. Oxid Med Cell Longev 2020: 8837893. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/8837893
    [164] Zielonka J, Joseph J, Sikora A, et al. (2017) Mitochondria-targeted triphenylphosphonium-based compounds: Syntheses, mechanisms of action, and therapeutic and diagnostic applications. Chem Rev 117: 10043-10120. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.7b00042
    [165] Cheng G, Zielonka J, McAllister DM, et al. (2013) Mitochondria-targeted vitamin E analogs inhibit breast cancer cell energy metabolism and promote cell death. BMC Cancer 13: 285. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2407-13-285
    [166] Kelso GF, Porteous CM, Coulter CV, et al. (2001) Selective targeting of a redox-active ubiquinone to mitochondria within cells: antioxidant and antiapoptotic properties. J Biol Chem 276: 4588-4596. https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M009093200
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(1862) PDF downloads(131) Cited by(2)

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog