β-Cell Neogenesis During Prolonged Hyperglycemia in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
beta-cell neogenesis from ductal precursors, and possibly from other pancreatic cell types, contributes to the expansion of beta-cell mass during development and after diabetogenic insults in rodents. Using a mathematical model-based analysis of beta-cell mass, replication, and size, we recently demonstrated that neogenesis is also quantitatively important to the expansion of beta-cell mass during prolonged hyperglycemia. In the present study, we examined the morphological appearance of neogenic focal areas, duct cell replication, and beta-cell cluster size distribution in male Sprague Dawley rats infused with either saline or 50% glucose (2 ml/h) for 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6 days. Pancreatic tissue characterized by a high density of small duct-like structures, previously described as neogenic focal areas, were present in glucose-infused rats after 2, 3, or 4 days of infusion. The cross-sectional area of the pancreas characterized as focal tissue peaked after 3 days of infusion at 2.9 +/- 0.8%. In contrast to the partial pancreatectomy model of beta-cell regeneration, duct cell replication was not increased before or during focal area formation. However, the replication rate of cells in the duct-like structures of the focal areas was twofold greater than in cells of the common pancreatic duct and 15- to 40-fold greater than in cells of small, medium, and large ducts. Duct-cell replication was significantly reduced in small, medium, and large ducts of glucose as compared to saline-infused rats (0.21 +/- 0.02 vs. 0.48 +/- 0.04%; P < 0.03). Duct-associated beta-cell mass was not different in glucose- and saline-infused rats (P = 0.78), whereas the number of acinar-associated single beta -cells increased by 70% after 3 and 4 days of glucose infusion. In addition to small duct-like structures, focal areas had considerable T-cell infiltration (151 +/- 30 T-cells/ mm(2)). There was also an increase in T-cell infiltration in acinar tissue of glucose as compared to saline-infused rats (0.43 +/- 0.11 vs. 0.03 +/- 0. 01 T-cells/mm(2); P < 0.0001). In conclusion, these data suggest that neogenic focal areas in these glucose-infused rats do not arise from replication and differentiation of ductal progenitor cells. Rather, acinar cell transdifferentiation into beta-cells and acinar cell dedifferentiation into neogenic focal areas lead to new beta-cell formation during prolonged hyperglycemia.
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) | 0.001 | 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".