4.7 Article

Activation of protein kinase C-ζ by insulin and phosphatidylinositol-3,4,5-(PO4)3 is defective in muscle in type 2 diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance -: Amelioration by rosiglitazone and exercise

期刊

DIABETES
卷 52, 期 8, 页码 1926-1934

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diabetes.52.8.1926

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [R01 DK065969, 2R01-DK-38079-09A1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Insulin resistance in type 2 diabetes is partly due to impaired glucose transport in skeletal muscle. Atypical protein kinase C (aPKC) and protein kinase B (PKB), operating downstream of phosphatidylinositol (PI) 3-kinase and its lipid product, PI-3,4,5-(PO4)(3) (PIP3), apparently mediate insulin effects on glucose transport. We examined these signaling factors during hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp studies in nondiabetic subjects, subjects with impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and type 2 diabetic subjects. In nondiabetic control subjects, insulin provoked twofold increases in muscle aPKC activity. In both IGT and diabetes, aPKC activation was markedly (70-80%) diminished, most likely reflecting impaired activation of insulin receptor substrate (IRS)-1-dependent PI 3-kinase and decreased ability of PIP3 to directly activate aPKCs; additionally, muscle PKC-zeta levels were diminished by 40%. PKB activation was diminished in patients with IGT but not significantly in diabetic patients. The insulin sensitizer rosiglitazone improved insulin-stimulated IRS-1-dependent PI 3-kinase and aPKC activation, as well as glucose disposal rates. Bicycle exercise, which activates aPKCs and stimulates glucose transport independently of PI 3-kinase, activated aPKCs comparably to insulin in nondiabetic subjects and better than insulin in diabetic patients. Defective aPKC activation contributes to skeletal muscle insulin resistance in IGT and type 2 diabetes, rosiglitazone improves insulin-stimulated aPKC activation, and exercise directly activates aPKCs in diabetic muscle.

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