The Endothelial Barrier Is not Rate-limiting to Insulin Action in the Myocardium of Male Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To act on tissues, circulating insulin must perfuse the relevant organ and then leave the bloodstream by crossing the endothelium-a process known as insulin delivery. It has been postulated that the continuous endothelium is a rate-limiting barrier to insulin delivery but existing data are contradictory. This conflict is in part due to the limitations of current models, including the inability to maintain a constant blood pressure in animals and the absence of shear stress in cultured cells. We developed a murine cardiac ex vivo perfusion model that delivers insulin to the heart in situ at a constant flow. We hypothesized that if the endothelial barrier were rate-limiting to insulin delivery, increasing endothelial permeability would accelerate insulin action. The kinetics of myocardial insulin action were determined in the presence or absence of agents that increased endothelial permeability. Permeability was measured using Evans Blue, which binds with high affinity to albumin. During our experiments, the myocardium remained sensitive to insulin and the vasculature retained barrier integrity. Perfusion with insulin induced Akt phosphorylation in myocytes but not in the endothelium. Infusion of platelet-activating factor or vascular endothelial growth factor significantly increased permeability to albumin without altering insulin action. Amiloride, an inhibitor of fluid-phase uptake, also did not alter insulin action. These data suggest that the endothelial barrier is not rate limiting to insulin's action in the heart; its passage out of the coronary circulation is consistent with diffusion or convection. Modulation of transendothelial transport to overcome insulin resistance is unlikely to be a viable therapeutic strategy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".