Chronic Exposure to GLP-1R Agonists Promotes Homologous GLP-1 Receptor Desensitization In Vitro but Does Not Attenuate GLP-1R–Dependent Glucose Homeostasis In Vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) stimulates glucose-dependent insulin secretion and inhibits food intake, gastric emptying, and glucagon secretion, actions that promote reduction of fasting and postprandial glycemia in subjects with type 2 diabetes. The rapid degradation of native GLP-1 has engendered interest in more stable longer-acting GLP-1 receptor agonists such as exendin-4 (Ex-4); however, the potential consequences of sustained GLP-1 receptor activation leading to receptor desensitization has not been extensively studied. We have now examined a range of GLP-1 receptor-dependent responses following treatment with Ex-4 using INS-1 cells in vitro and both wild-type control and MT-Ex-4 transgenic mice in vivo. Although both GLP-1 and Ex-4 acutely desensitized GLP-1 receptor-dependent cAMP accumulation in INS-1 cells, Ex-4 produced more sustained receptor desensitization, relative to GLP-1, in both acute (5-120 min) and chronic (24-72 h) experiments. PMA (4-phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate) but not glucagon, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), or epinephrine produced heterologous desensitization in vitro. MT-Ex-4 transgenic mice exhibited a reduced glycemic response to oral but not intraperitoneal glucose challenge following acute Ex-4 administration. In contrast, no differences in glycemic excursion or plasma insulin were observed after 1 week of twice-daily Ex-4 administration to wild-type versus MT-Ex-4 mice. Similarly, the levels of insulin, pdx-1, and GLP-1 receptor mRNA transcripts were comparable in wild-type and MT-Ex-4 transgenic mice after 1 week of Ex-4 administration. However, repeated Ex-4 administration significantly reduced food intake in MT-Ex-4 but not in wild-type mice. These findings illustrate that although Ex-4 is more potent than native GLP-1 in producing GLP-1 receptor desensitization in vitro, chronic exposure to Ex-4 in normal or transgenic mice is not associated with significant downregulation of GLP-1 receptor-dependent responses coupled to glucose homeostasis in vivo.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".