β-Cell Mass Dynamics and Islet Cell Plasticity in Human Type 2 Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of long-standing type 2 diabetes (T2D) report a deficit in beta-cell mass due to increased apoptosis, whereas neogenesis and replication are unaffected. It is unclear whether these changes are a cause or a consequence of T2D. Moreover, whereas islet morphogenetic plasticity has been demonstrated in vitro, the in situ plasticity of islets, as well as the effect of T2D on endocrine differentiation, is unknown. We compared beta-cell volume, neogenesis, replication, and apoptosis in pancreata from lean and obese (body mass index > or = 27 kg/m(2)) diabetic (5 +/- 2 yr since diagnosis) and nondiabetic cadaveric donors. We also subjected isolated islets from diabetic (3 +/- 1 yr since diagnosis) and nondiabetic donors to an established in vitro model of islet plasticity. Differences in beta-cell volume between diabetic and nondiabetic donors were consistently less pronounced than those reported in long-standing T2D. A compensatory increase in beta-cell neogenesis appeared to mediate this effect. Studies of induced plasticity indicated that islets from diabetic donors were capable of epithelial dedifferentiation but did not demonstrate regenerative potential, as was seen in islets from nondiabetic donors. This deficiency was associated with the overexpression of Notch signaling molecules and a decreased neurogenin-3(+) cell frequency. One interpretation of these results would be that decreased beta-cell volume is a consequence, not a cause, of T2D, mediated by increased apoptosis and attenuated beta-cell (re)generation. However, other explanations are also possible. It remains to be seen whether the morphogenetic plasticity of human islets, deficient in vitro in islets from diabetic donors, is a component of normal beta-cell mass dynamics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".