AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study examined the biological effects of the GIP receptor antagonist, (Pro3)GIP and the GLP-1 receptor antagonist, exendin(9-39)amide. METHODS: Cyclic AMP production was assessed in Chinese hamster lung fibroblasts transfected with human GIP or GLP-1 receptors, respectively. In vitro insulin release studies were assessed in BRIN-BD11 cells while in vivo insulinotropic and glycaemic responses were measured in obese diabetic ( ob/ ob) mice. RESULTS: In GIP receptor-transfected fibroblasts, (Pro(3))GIP or exendin(9-39)amide inhibited GIP-stimulated cyclic AMP production with maximal inhibition of 70.0+/-3.5% and 73.5+/-3.2% at 10(-6) mol/l, respectively. In GLP-1 receptor-transfected fibroblasts, exendin(9-39)amide inhibited GLP-1-stimulated cyclic AMP production with maximal inhibition of 60+/-0.7% at 10(-6) mol/l, whereas (Pro(3))GIP had no effect. (Pro(3))GIP specifically inhibited GIP-stimulated insulin release (86%; p<0.001) from clonal BRIN-BD11 cells, but had no effect on GLP-1-stimulated insulin release. In contrast, exendin(9-39)amide inhibited both GIP and GLP-1-stimulated insulin release (57% and 44%, respectively; p<0.001). Administration of (Pro(3))GIP, exendin(9-39)amide or a combination of both peptides (25 nmol/kg body weight, i.p.) to fasted (ob/ob) mice decreased the plasma insulin responses by 42%, 54% and 49%, respectively (p<0.01 to p<0.001). The hyperinsulinaemia of non-fasted (ob/ob) mice was decreased by 19%, 27% and 18% (p<0.05 to p<0.01) by injection of (Pro3)GIP, exendin(9-39)amide or combined peptides but accompanying changes of plasma glucose were small. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: These data show that (Pro(3))GIP is a specific GIP receptor antagonist. Furthermore, feeding studies in one commonly used animal model of obesity and diabetes, (ob/ob) mice, suggest that GIP is the major physiological component of the enteroinsular axis, contributing approximately 80% to incretin-induced insulin release.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: This study examined the biological effects of the GIP receptor antagonist, (Pro3)GIP and the GLP-1 receptor antagonist, exendin(9-39)amide. METHODS:Cyclic AMP production was assessed in Chinese hamster lung fibroblasts transfected with humanGIP or GLP-1 receptors, respectively. In vitro insulin release studies were assessed in BRIN-BD11 cells while in vivo insulinotropic and glycaemic responses were measured in obese diabetic ( ob/ ob) mice. RESULTS: In GIP receptor-transfected fibroblasts, (Pro(3))GIP or exendin(9-39)amide inhibited GIP-stimulated cyclic AMP production with maximal inhibition of 70.0+/-3.5% and 73.5+/-3.2% at 10(-6) mol/l, respectively. In GLP-1 receptor-transfected fibroblasts, exendin(9-39)amide inhibited GLP-1-stimulated cyclic AMP production with maximal inhibition of 60+/-0.7% at 10(-6) mol/l, whereas (Pro(3))GIP had no effect. (Pro(3))GIP specifically inhibited GIP-stimulated insulin release (86%; p<0.001) from clonal BRIN-BD11 cells, but had no effect on GLP-1-stimulated insulin release. In contrast, exendin(9-39)amide inhibited both GIP and GLP-1-stimulated insulin release (57% and 44%, respectively; p<0.001). Administration of (Pro(3))GIP, exendin(9-39)amide or a combination of both peptides (25 nmol/kg body weight, i.p.) to fasted (ob/ob) mice decreased the plasma insulin responses by 42%, 54% and 49%, respectively (p<0.01 to p<0.001). The hyperinsulinaemia of non-fasted (ob/ob) mice was decreased by 19%, 27% and 18% (p<0.05 to p<0.01) by injection of (Pro3)GIP, exendin(9-39)amide or combined peptides but accompanying changes of plasma glucose were small. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: These data show that (Pro(3))GIP is a specific GIP receptor antagonist. Furthermore, feeding studies in one commonly used animal model of obesity and diabetes, (ob/ob) mice, suggest that GIP is the major physiological component of the enteroinsular axis, contributing approximately 80% to incretin-induced insulin release.
Authors: Victor A Gault; Finbarr P M O'Harte; Patrick Harriott; Peter R Flatt Journal: Biochem Biophys Res Commun Date: 2002-02-08 Impact factor: 3.575
Authors: K Miyawaki; Y Yamada; H Yano; H Niwa; N Ban; Y Ihara; A Kubota; S Fujimoto; M Kajikawa; A Kuroe; K Tsuda; H Hashimoto; T Yamashita; T Jomori; F Tashiro; J Miyazaki; Y Seino Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 1999-12-21 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Laelie A Snook; Emery M Nelson; David J Dyck; David C Wright; Graham P Holloway Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2015-06-03 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Ian A Tamargo; Miaad Bader; Yazhou Li; Seong-Jin Yu; Yun Wang; Konrad Talbot; Richard D DiMarchi; Chaim G Pick; Nigel H Greig Journal: Exp Neurol Date: 2016-11-11 Impact factor: 5.330
Authors: Paul B Higgins; José R Férnández; W Timothy Garvey; Wesley M Granger; Barbara A Gower Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 2008-11 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: Karin Sterl; Songyan Wang; Lauren Oestricker; Michael J Wallendorf; Bruce W Patterson; Dominic N Reeds; Burton M Wice Journal: Peptides Date: 2016-06-07 Impact factor: 3.750