4.3 Article

Simplified Method to Isolate Highly Pure Canine Pancreatic Islets

期刊

PANCREAS
卷 41, 期 1, 页码 31-38

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPA.0b013e318221fd0e

关键词

dog islets; insulin secretion; isolation; morphometry; purity; viability

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DK29867, DK27619, DK60623, GM85791]
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [R01DK027619, R37DK027619, R01DK060623, R01DK029867] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES [R01GM085791] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: The canine model has been used extensively to improve the human pancreatic islet isolation technique. At the functional level, dog islets show high similarity to human islets and thus can be a helpful tool for islet research. We describe and compare 2 manual isolation methods, M1 (initial) and M2 (modified), and analyze the variables associated with the outcomes, including islet yield, purity, and glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS). Methods: Male mongrel dogs were used in the study. M2 (n = 7) included higher collagenase concentration, shorter digestion time, faster shaking speed, colder purification temperature, and higher differential density gradient than M1 (n = 7). Results: Islet yield was similar between methods (3111.0 +/- 309.1 and 3155.8 +/- 644.5 islets/g, M1 and M2, respectively; P = 0.951). Pancreas weight and purity together were directly associated with the yield (adjusted R-2 = 0.61; P = 0.002). Purity was considerably improved with M2 (96.7% +/- 1.2% vs 75.0% +/- 6.3%; P = 0.006). M2 improved GSIS (P = 0.021). Independently, digestion time was inversely associated with GSIS. Conclusions: We describe an isolation method (M2) to obtain a highly pure yield of dog islets with adequate beta-cell glucose responsiveness. The isolation variables associated with the outcomes in our canine model confirm previous reports in other species, including humans.

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

4.3
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