4.5 Article

In vitro and mouse in vivo characterization of the potent free fatty acid 1 receptor agonist TUG-469

Journal

NAUNYN-SCHMIEDEBERGS ARCHIVES OF PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 386, Issue 12, Pages 1021-1030

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00210-013-0899-3

Keywords

Diabetes; FFA1; Free fatty acids; GPR40; TUG-469

Funding

  1. Dr. Hilmer Foundation (Association for the Promotion of Science and Humanities in Germany)
  2. Danish Council for Independent Research/Technology and Production [09-070364]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Activation of the G protein-coupled free fatty acid receptor 1 (FFA1; formerly known as GPR40) leads to an enhancement of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion from pancreatic beta-cells. TUG-469 has previously been reported as a potent FFA1 agonist. This study was performed to confirm the higher in vitro potency of TUG-469 compared to the reference FFA1 agonist GW9508 and to prove in vivo activity in a pre-diabetic mouse model. The in vitro pharmacology of TUG-469 was studied using Ca2+-, cAMP-, and impedance-based assays at recombinant FFA1 and free fatty acid receptor 4, formerly known as GPR120 (FFA4) expressing 1321N1 cells and the rat insulinoma cell line INS-1. Furthermore, we investigated the systemic effect of TUG-469 on glucose tolerance in pre-diabetic New Zealand obese (NZO) mice performing a glucose tolerance test after intraperitoneal administration of 5 mg/kg TUG-469. In comparison to GW9508, TUG-469 showed a 1.7- to 3.0-times higher potency in vitro at 1321N1 cells recombinantly expressing FFA1. Both compounds increased insulin secretion from rat insulinoma INS-1 cells. TUG-469 is > 200-fold selective for FFA1 over FFA4. Finally, a single dose of 5 mg/kg TUG-469 significantly improved glucose tolerance in pre-diabetic NZO mice. TUG-469 turned out as a promising candidate for further drug development of FFA1 agonists for treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available