Oscillatory Membrane Potential Response to Glucose in Islet β-Cells: A Comparison of Islet-Cell Electrical Activity in Mouse and Rat
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In contrast to mouse, rat islet beta-cell membrane potential is reported not to oscillate in response to elevated glucose despite demonstrated oscillations in calcium and insulin secretion. We aim to clarify the electrical activity of rat islet beta-cells and characterize and compare the electrical activity of both alpha- and beta-cells in rat and mouse islets. We recorded electrical activity from alpha- and beta-cells within intact islets from both mouse and rat using the perforated whole-cell patch clamp technique. Fifty-six percent of both mouse and rat beta-cells exhibited an oscillatory response to 11.1 mm glucose. Responses to both 11.1 mm and 2.8 mm glucose were identical in the two species. Rat beta-cells exhibited incremental depolarization in a glucose concentration-dependent manner. We also demonstrated electrical activity in human islets recorded under the same conditions. In both mouse and rat alpha-cells 11 mm glucose caused hyperpolarization of the membrane potential, whereas 2.8 mm glucose produced action potential firing. No species differences were observed in the response of alpha-cells to glucose. This paper is the first to demonstrate and characterize oscillatory membrane potential fluctuations in the presence of elevated glucose in rat islet beta-cells in comparison with mouse. The findings promote the use of rat islets in future electrophysiological studies, enabling consistency between electrophysiological and insulin secretion studies. An inverse response of alpha-cell membrane potential to glucose furthers our understanding of the mechanisms underlying glucose sensitive glucagon secretion.
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) | 0.001 | 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".