4.8 Article

Paracrine Interactions within the Pancreatic Islet Determine the Glycemic Set Point

期刊

CELL METABOLISM
卷 27, 期 3, 页码 549-+

出版社

CELL PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.01.015

关键词

-

资金

  1. Diabetes Research Institute Foundation (DRIF)
  2. American Diabetes Association Innovative grant [1-17-ICTS-052, R21DK114418]
  3. Swedish Diabetes Association
  4. Swedish Research Council
  5. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  6. Family Erling-Persson Foundation
  7. Strategic Research Program in Diabetes at Karolinska Institutet
  8. ERC-AdG [338936-BetaImage]
  9. ERC-PoC [727306]
  10. Family Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  11. Skandia Insurance Company Ltd
  12. Diabetes and Wellness Foundation
  13. Bert von Kantzow Foundation
  14. Stichting af Jochnick Foundation
  15. NIH [F32DK083226, K01DK097194, R01DK084321, R56DK084321, R01DK111538, R01DK113093, R21ES025673]
  16. European Research Council (ERC) [727306] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Every animal species has a signature blood glucose level or glycemic set point. These set points are different, and the normal glycemic levels (normoglycemia) of one species would be life threatening for other species. Mouse normoglycemia can be considered diabetic for humans. The biological determinants of the glycemic set point remain unclear. Here we show that the pancreatic islet imposes its glycemic set point on the organism, making it the bona fide glucostat in the body. Moreover, and in contrast to rodent islets, glucagon input from the alpha cell to the insulin-secreting beta cell is necessary to fine-tune the distinctive human set point. These findings affect transplantation and regenerative approaches to treat diabetes because restoring normoglycemia may require more than replacing only the beta cells. Furthermore, therapeutic strategies using glucagon receptor antagonists as hypoglycemic agents need to be reassessed, as they may reset the overall glucostat in the organism.

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