4.7 Article

Considerations in the design of hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamps in the conscious mouse

期刊

DIABETES
卷 55, 期 2, 页码 390-397

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diabetes.55.02.06.db05-0686

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [U24-DK-59637, R01-DK-50277] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite increased use of the hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp to study insulin action in mice, the effects of experimental parameters on the results obtained have not been addressed. In our studies, we determined the influences of sampling sites, fasting duration, and insulin delivery on results obtained from clamps in conscious mice. Carotid artery and jugular vein catheters were implanted in C57BL/6J mice (n = 6-10/group) fed a normal diet for sampling and infusions. After a 5-day recovery period, mice underwent a 120-min clamp (2.5-mU . kg(-1) . min(-1) insulin infusion; similar to 120-130 mg/dl glucose) while receiving [3-H-3]glucose to determine glucose appearance (endoR(a)) and disappearance (R-d). Sampling large volumes (similar to 100 mu l) from the cut tail resulted in elevated catecholamines and basal glucose compared with artery sampling. Catecholamines were not elevated when taking small samples (similar to 5 mu l) from the cut tail. Overnight (18-h) fasting resulted in greater loss of total body, lean, and fat masses and hepatic glycogen but resulted in enhanced insulin sensitivity compared with 5-h fasting. Compared with a 16-mU/kg insulin prime, a 300-mU/kg prime resulted in hepatic insulin resistance and slower acquisition of steady-state glucose infusion rates (GIR) after a 5-h fast. The steady-state GIR was expedited after the 300-mU/kg prime in 18-h-fasted mice. The GIR and Rd rose with increasing insulin infusions (0.8, 2.5, 4, and 20 mU . kg(-1) . min(-1)), but endoR(a) was fully suppressed with doses higher than 0.8 mU . k(-1) . min(-1). Thus, common variations in experimental factors yield different results and should be considered in designing and interpreting clamps.

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

4.7
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