4.6 Article

Peripheral, but not central, GLP-1 receptor signaling is required for improvement in glucose tolerance after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in mice

期刊

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00412.2015

关键词

glucagon-like peptide-1; Roux-en-Y gastric bypass; glucose tolerance; obesity; central regulation

资金

  1. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases [DK-095567, DK-088661, DK-090956]
  2. Ethicon

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) causes profound weight loss and remission of diabetes by influencing metabolic physiology, yet the mechanisms behind these clinical improvements remain undefined. After RYGB, levels of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1), a hormone that enhances insulin secretion and promotes satiation, are substantially elevated. Because GLP-1 signals in both the periphery and the brain to influence energy balance and glucose regulation, we aimed to determine the relative requirements of these systems to weight loss and improved glucose tolerance following RYGB surgery in mice. By pharmacologically blocking peripheral or central GLP-1R signaling, we examined whether GLP-1 action is necessary for the metabolic improvements observed after RYGB. Diet-induced obese mice underwent RYGB or sham operation and were implanted with osmotic pumps delivering the GLP-1R antagonist exendin-(9-39) (2 pmol.kg(-1).min(-1) peripherally; 0.5 pmol.kg(-1).min(-1) centrally) for up to 10 wk. Blockade of peripheral GLP-1R signaling partially reversed the improvement in glucose tolerance after RYGB. In contrast, fasting glucose and insulin sensitivity, as well as body weight, were unaffected by GLP-1R antagonism. Central GLP-1R signaling did not appear to be required for any of the metabolic improvements seen after this operation. Collectively, these results suggest a detectable but only modest role for GLP-1 in mediating the effects of RYGB and that this role is limited to its well-described action on glucose regulation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据