Discovery of gastric inhibitory polypeptide and its subsequent fate: Personal reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present review focuses initially on experimental studies that were designed to identify acid inhibitory factors, referred to as 'enterogastrones,' that ultimately led to the isolation of gastric inhibitory polypeptide (GIP), a 42-amino acid polypeptide. GIP was shown to inhibit acid secretion in animal models, as well as stimulating gastric somatostatin secretion. However, its role in human gastric physiology is unclear. Further studies showed that GIP strongly stimulated the secretion of insulin, in the presence of elevated glucose, and this 'incretin' action is now considered to be its most important; an alternative for the GIP acronym, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide, was therefore introduced. In the 1970s, GIP purified by conventional chromatography was shown by high-performance liquid chromatography to consist largely of GIP 1-42 and GIP 3-42. It was later shown that dipeptidyl peptidase 4 was a physiologically relevant enzyme responsible for this conversion, as well as the similar metabolism of the second incretin, glucagon-like peptide-1. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors are currently in use as type 2 diabetes therapeutics, and studies on islet transplantation in rodent models of type 1 diabetes have shown that dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor treatment reduces graft rejection. Additional studies on C-terminally shortened forms of GIP have shown that GIP 1-30 and a dipeptidyl peptidase-4-resistant form (D-Ala(2) GIP 1-30) are equipotent to the intact polypeptide in vitro, and administration of D-Ala(2) GIP 1-30 to diabetic rodents greatly improved glucose tolerance and reduced apoptotic cell death in islet β-cells. There are probably therefore further clinically useful effects of GIP that require investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 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".