4.3 Article

Effect of ageing and diabetes on glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide and dipeptidyl peptidase IV responses to oral glucose

期刊

DIABETIC MEDICINE
卷 17, 期 5, 页码 346-350

出版社

BLACKWELL SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1046/j.1464-5491.2000.00236.x

关键词

DPP-IV; aged; Type 2 diabetes; GIP; GLP-1; obesity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) acts on the pancreas to potentiate glucose-induced insulin secretion (enteroinsular axis). GIP is rapidly inactivated in vivo by the enzyme dipeptidyl dipeptidase IV (DPP-IV). The current studies were designed to examine the effect of ageing, obesity and diabetes on GIP and DPP-IV responses to oral glucose. Methods Healthy controls (nine middle-aged, age 42 +/- 2 years, body mass index (BMI) 33 +/- 1 kg/m(2); nine elderly, age 71 +/- 1 years, BMI 30 +/- 1 kg/m(2)) and patients with Type 2 diabetes (12 middle-aged, age 44 +/- 2 years, BMI 34 +/- 2 kg/m(2); 19 elderly, age 74 +/- 1 years, BMI 31 +/- 1 kg/m(2)) underwent a 3-h oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) (glucose dose 40 g/m(2)). Results Insulin responses were similar in elderly controls and patients with diabetes, but were lower in middle-aged patients with diabetes than in controls (308 +/- 65 vs. 640 +/- 109 pM, P < 0.05). GIP responses were similar in controls and patients with diabetes in each age group, but were higher in elderly controls (middle-aged 45 +/- 13; elderly 112 +/- 13 pM, P < 0.01) and patients with diabetes (middle-aged 55 +/- 10; elderly 99 +/- 10 pM, P < 0.01). DPP-IV levels were lower in patients with diabetes in both middle-aged (control 0.241 +/- 0.015; diabetes 0.179 +/- 0.017 Delta OD/20 min, P < 0.05) and elderly groups (control 0.223 +/- 0.019; diabetes 0.173 +/- 0.010 Delta OD/20 min, P < 0.05). Conclusions It was concluded that ageing in obese subjects is associated with enhanced GIP responses to oral glucose. In addition, DPP-IV activity is reduced in middle-aged and elderly obese patients with 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

4.3
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