4.6 Article

Acute hyperglycemia alters the ability of the normal β-cell to sense and respond to glucose

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00427.2001

关键词

insulin secretion; connecting peptide; oscillations; spectral power

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) and non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) are associated with an impaired ability of the beta-cell to sense and respond to small changes in plasma glucose. The aim of this study was to establish whether acute hyperglycemia per se plays a role in inducing this defect in beta-cell response. Seven healthy volunteers with no family history of NIDDM were studied on two occasions during a 12-h oscillatory glucose infusion with a periodicity of 144 min. Once, low-dose glucose was infused at a mean rate of 6 mg.kg(-1).min(-1) and amplitude 33% above and below the mean rate, and, once, high-dose glucose was infused at 12 mg.kg(-1).min(-1) and amplitude 16% above and below the mean rate. Mean glucose levels were significantly higher during the high-dose compared with the low-dose glucose infusion [9.5 +/- 0.8 vs. 6.8 +/- 0.2 mM (P < 0.01)], resulting in increased mean insulin secretion rates [ISRs; 469.1 +/- 43.8 vs. 268.4 +/- 29 pmol/min (P < 0.001)] and mean insulin levels [213.6 +/- 46 vs. 67.9 +/- 10.9 pmol/l (P < 0.008)]. Spectral analysis evaluates the regularity of oscillations in glucose, insulin secretion, and insulin at a predetermined frequency. Spectral power for glucose, ISR, and insulin was reduced during the high-dose glucose infusion [11.8 +/- 1.4 to 7.0 +/- 1.6 (P < 0.02), 7.6 +/- 1.5 to 3.2 +/- 0.5 (P < 0.04), and 10.5 +/- 1.6 to 4.6 +/- 0.7 (P < 0.01), respectively]. In conclusion, short-term infusion of high-dose glucose to obtain glucose levels similar to those previously seen in IGT subjects results in reduced spectral power for glucose, ISR, and insulin. The reduction in spectral power previously observed for ISR in IGT or NIDDM subjects may be due partly to hyperglycemia.

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