Defective Glucose-Dependent Insulinotropic Polypeptide Receptor Expression in Diabetic Fatty Zucker Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) is a peptide hormone that is released postprandially from the small intestine and acts in concert with glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1 to potentiate glucose-induced insulin secretion from the pancreatic beta-cell. In type 2 diabetes, there is a decreased responsiveness of the pancreas to GIP; however, the insulin response to GLP-1 remains intact. The literature suggests that the ineffectiveness of GIP in type 2 diabetes may be a result of chronic homologous desensitization of the GIP receptor. Yet, there has been no conclusive evidence suggesting that GIP levels are elevated in diabetes. The hypothesis of the present study is that one cause of decreased responsiveness to GIP in type 2 diabetes is an inappropriate expression of the GIP receptor in the pancreatic islet. This hypothesis was tested using a strain of diabetic fatty Zucker rats. The obese rats displayed basal GIP levels similar to the control animals; however, they were unresponsive to a GIP infusion (4 pmol.min(-1). kg(-1)), whereas the lean animals displayed a significant reduction in blood glucose (GIP levels, 50% control after 60 min, P < 0.05) as well as a significant increase in circulating insulin. GIP also potently stimulated first-phase insulin secretion from isolated perifused islets (10.3 +/- 3.0 x basal), and GIP and GLP-1 potentiated insulin secretion from the perfused pancreas (6 x control area under the curve [AUC]) from lean animals. GIP yielded no significant effect in the Vancouver diabetic fatty Zucker (VDF) rat pancreases, whereas GLP-1 elicited an eightfold increase of insulin secretion from the perfused VDF pancreas. Islets from lean animals subjected to static incubations with GIP showed a 2.2-fold increase in cAMP, whereas GIP failed to increase islet cAMP in the VDF islets. Finally, the expression of both GIP receptor mRNA and protein was decreased in islets from VDF rats. These data suggest that the decreased effectiveness of GIP in the VDF rat and in type 2 diabetes may be a result of a decreased receptor expression in the islet.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".