4.8 Review

Biology of incretins: GLP-1 and GIP

期刊

GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 132, 期 6, 页码 2131-2157

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.03.054

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This review focuses on the mechanisms regulating the synthesis, secretion, biological actions, and therapeutic relevance of the incretin peptides glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1). The published literature was reviewed, with emphasis on recent advances in our understanding of the biology of GIP and GLP-1. GIP and GLP-1 are both secreted within minutes of nutrient ingestion and facilitate the rapid disposal of ingested nutrients. Both peptides share common actions on islet beta-cells acting through structurally distinct yet related receptors. Incretin-receptor activation leads to glucose-dependent insulin secretion, induction of beta-cell proliferation, and enhanced resistance to apoptosis. GIP also promotes energy storage via direct actions on adipose tissue, and enhances bone formation via stimulation of osteoblast proliferation and inhibition of apoptosis. in contrast, GLP-1 exerts glucoregulatory actions via slowing of gastric emptying and glucose-dependent inhibition of glucagon secretion. GLP-1 also promotes satiety and sustained GLP-1-receptor activation is associated with weight loss in both preclinical and clinical studies. The rapid degradation of both GIP and GLP-1 by the enzyme dipeptidyl peptidase-4 has led to the development of degradation-resistant GLP1-receptor agonists and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. These agents decrease hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) safely without weight gain in subjects with type 2 diabetes. GLP-1 and GIP integrate nutrient-derived signals to control food intake, energy absorption, and assimilation. Recently approved therapeutic agents based on potentiation of incretin action provide new physiologically based approaches for the treatment of 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