4.5 Article

Novel GLP-1 Mimetics Developed To Treat Type 2 Diabetes Promote Progenitor Cell Proliferation in the Brain

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 89, 期 4, 页码 481-489

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jnr.22565

关键词

diabetes; neurodegeneration; Alzheimer's disease; stem cells; regeneration; incretins

资金

  1. Alzheimer Research Trust, U.K.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

One of the symptoms of diabetes is the progressive development of neuropathies. One mechanism to replace neurons in the CNS is through the activation of stem cells and neuronal progenitor cells. We have tested the effects of the novel GLP-1 mimetics exenatide (exendin-4; Byetta) and liraglutide (NN2211; Victoza), which are already on the market as treatments for type 2 diabetes, on the proliferation rate of progenitor cells and differentiation into neurons in the dentate gyrus of brains of mouse models of diabetes. GLP-1 analogues were injected subcutaneously for 4, 6, or 10 weeks once daily in three mouse models of diabetes: ob/ob mice, db/db mice, or high-fat-diet-fed mice. Twenty-four hours before perfusion, animals were injected with 5'-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine (BrdU) to mark dividing progenitor cells. By using immunohistochemistry and stereological methods, the number of progenitor cells or doublecortin-positive young neurons in the dentate gyrus was estimated. We found that, in all three mouse models, progenitor cell division was enhanced compared with nondiabetic controls after chronic i.p. injection of either liraglutide or exendin-4 by 100-150% (P < 0.001). We also found an increase in young neurons in the DG of high-fat-diet-fed mice after drug treatment (P < 0.001). The GLP-1 receptor antagonist exendin(9-36) reduced progenitor cell proliferation in these mice. The results demonstrate that GLP-1 mimetics show promise as a treatment for neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, because these novel drugs cross the blood-brain barrier and increase neuroneogenesis. (C) 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.5
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