4.6 Article

Establishment of a Refined Oral Glucose Tolerance Test in Pigs, and Assessment of Insulin, Glucagon and Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Responses

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148896

关键词

-

资金

  1. Michael Forsgrens Foundation [2015-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetes mellitus is increasing worldwide and reliable animal models are important for progression of the research field. The pig is a commonly used large animal model in diabetes research and the present study aimed to refine a model for oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) in young growing pigs, as well as describing intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT) in the same age group. The refined porcine OGTT will reflect that used in children and adolescents. Eighteen pigs were obtained one week after weaning and trained for two weeks to bottle-feed glucose solution, mimicking the human OGTT. The pigs subsequently underwent OGTT (1.75 g/kg BW) and IVGTT (0.5 g/kg BW). Blood samples were collected from indwelling vein catheters for measurements of glucose and the diabetes related hormones insulin, glucagon and active glucagon-like peptide-1. The study confirmed that pigs can be trained to bottle-feed glucose dissolved in water and thereby undergo an OGTT more similar to the human standard OGTT than previously described methods in pigs. With the refined method for OGTT, oral intake only consists of glucose and water, which is an advantage over previously described methods in pigs where glucose is given together with feed which will affect glucose absorption. Patterns of hormonal secretion in response to oral and intravenous glucose were similar to those in humans; however, the pigs were more glucose tolerant with lower insulin levels than humans. In translational medicine, this refined OGTT and IVGTT methods provide important tools in diabetes research when pigs are used as models for children and adolescents in diabetes research.

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

4.6
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