4.8 Article

Loss of FFA2 and FFA3 increases insulin secretion and improves glucose tolerance in type 2 diabetes

期刊

NATURE MEDICINE
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 173-177

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nm.3779

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Research Foundation [1039]
  2. Max Planck Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Type 2 diabetes is a major health problem worldwide, and one of its key features is the inability of elevated glucose to stimulate the release of sufficient amounts of insulin from pancreatic beta cells to maintain normal blood glucose levels(1,2). New therapeutic strategies to improve beta cell function are therefore believed to be beneficial(3,4). Here we demonstrate that the short-chain fatty acid receptors FFA2 (encoded by FFAR2) and FFA3 (encoded by FFAR3) are expressed in mouse and human pancreatic beta cells and mediate an inhibition of insulin secretion by coupling to G(i)-type G proteins. We also provide evidence that mice with dietary-induced obesity and type 2 diabetes, as compared to non-obese control mice, have increased local formation by pancreatic islets of acetate, an endogenous agonist of FFA2 and FFA3, as well as increased systemic levels. This elevation may contribute to the insufficient capacity of beta cells to respond to hyperglycemia in obese states. Indeed, we found that genetic deletion of both receptors, either on the whole-body level or specifically in pancreatic beta cells, leads to greater insulin secretion and a profound improvement of glucose tolerance when mice are on a high-fat diet compared to controls. On the other hand, deletion of Ffar2 and Ffar3 in intestinal cells did not alter glucose tolerance in diabetic animals, suggesting these receptors act in a cell-autonomous manner in beta cells to regulate insulin secretion. In summary, under diabetic conditions elevated acetate acts on FFA2 and FFA3 to inhibit proper glucose-stimulated insulin secretion, and we expect antagonists of FFA2 and FFA3 to improve insulin secretion in type 2 diabetes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据