| Literature DB >> 29974637 |
Chioma Izzi-Engbeaya1, Alexander N Comninos1,2, Sophie A Clarke1, Anne Jomard1, Lisa Yang1, Sophie Jones1, Ali Abbara1, Shakunthala Narayanaswamy1, Pei Chia Eng1, Deborah Papadopoulou1, Julia K Prague1, Paul Bech1, Ian F Godsland3, Paul Bassett4, Caroline Sands5, Stephane Camuzeaux5, Maria Gomez-Romero5, Jake T M Pearce5, Matthew R Lewis5, Elaine Holmes5, Jeremy K Nicholson5, Tricia Tan1, Risheka Ratnasabapathy1, Ming Hu6,7, Gaelle Carrat6,7, Lorenzo Piemonti8,9, Marco Bugliani10, Piero Marchetti10, Paul R Johnson11,12,13, Stephen J Hughes11,12,13, A M James Shapiro14, Guy A Rutter6,7, Waljit S Dhillo1.
Abstract
AIMS: To investigate the effect of kisspeptin on glucose-stimulated insulin secretion and appetite in humans.Entities:
Keywords: appetite control; beta cell function; glucose metabolism; incretins; insulin secretion; islets
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29974637 PMCID: PMC6282711 DOI: 10.1111/dom.13460
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Diabetes Obes Metab ISSN: 1462-8902 Impact factor: 6.577
Figure 1Kisspeptin administration enhances β‐cell function during IVGTT in humans. A, Following an overnight fast, 15 healthy men (age: 25.2 ± 1.1 years; BMI: 22.3 ± 0.5 kg M−2) were administered 1 nmol kg−1 hr−1 kisspeptin or rate‐matched vehicle for 225 minutes, in random order. At T = 45 minutes, 0.3 g kg−1 of 20% dextrose was infused intravenously over 2 minutes. Blood sampling was performed regularly (black arrows), with samples for metabolic profiling collected at T = −15 minutes and T = 45 minutes (green stars). B, Mean plasma kisspeptin levels during IVGTT were higher during kisspeptin infusion compared with vehicle administration as expected; **** P < 0.0001 kisspeptin vs. vehicle using GEE. C, Mean serum insulin levels during IVGTT were higher during kisspeptin infusion compared with vehicle administration; ** P = 0.01 kisspeptin vs. vehicle (multi‐level linear regression). D, Mean IVGTT‐DI was higher during kisspeptin administration (red bar) compared with vehicle administration (blue bar); * P < 0.05 kisspeptin vs. vehicle (paired t‐test). E, Mean plasma glucose levels during IVGTT were similar during kisspeptin and vehicle administration; P = 0.64 kisspeptin vs. vehicle (multi‐level linear regression). Data are presented as mean ± SEM; n = 15 per group
Figure 2Kisspeptin enhances GSIS in cultured human donor islets and a human pancreatic β‐cell line. A, Insulin secretion was measured in human islet preparations (n = 6 donors) at low (3 mM) and high (17 mM) concentrations of glucose in the presence of increasing concentrations of kisspeptin (0 nM [blue bars], 2.7 nM [red bars] or 1000 nM [black bars]). Insulin secretion was normalized to percentage of total secretion; * p < 0.05 (Friedman test with Dunn's multiple comparison tests). B, Insulin secretion in cultured EndoC‐βH1 cells (n = 3 experiments) was measured at high glucose concentrations (15 mM) in the presence of increasing amounts of kisspeptin (0 nM [blue bars], 100 nM [green bars] or 1000 nM [black bars]). Insulin secretion was normalized to percentage of total secretion; * p < 0.05 (two‐way ANOVA with Dunnett's multiple comparison tests). Data presented as mean ± SEM
Figure 3Kisspeptin modulates the metabolic profile in healthy men. Manhattan plot of the 5200 lipid species detected (in serum samples from 15 healthy male volunteers) by UPLC‐MS. 392 features showing a change over time significantly associated with kisspeptin administration are coloured red (increasing) or blue (decreasing). Statistical significance was determined based on a Q value threshold of 5%, where Q represents the local FDR‐corrected value of the appropriate linear mixed effect model estimates. Features successfully annotated are indicated on the plot as follows: 1, LPI(20:4); 2, LPC(0:0/14:0); 3, LPI(18:1); 4, LPE(0:0/18:2); 5, LPC(18:2/0:0); 6, LPE(18:2/0:0); 7, LPC(0:0/16:0); 8, CAR(20:3); 9, LPC(20:3/0:0); 10, LPC(16:0/0:0); 11, LPC(18:1/0:0); 12, Sphinganine(d18:0); 13, LPC(20:2/0:0); 14, LPC(0:0/18:0); 15, LPC(18:0/0:0) ; 16, LPC(20:1/0:0); 17, PC(18:2/18:2); 18, SM(d18:1/16:0); 19, PC(16:0/16:0); 20, SM(d18:1/18:0); 21, PC(18:0/18:2); 22, SM(d18:2/24:1); 23, SM(d18:2/22:0); 24, SM(d18:1/24:1); 25, SM(d18:1/22:0); 26, SM(d18:2/24:0); 27, SM(d18:1/24:0). Where LPI: lysophosphatidylinositol; LPC: lysophosphocholine; PC: phosphocholine; SM: sphingomyelin; LPE: lysophosphatidylethanolamine; CAR: Fatty acyl carnitine (see also Table S4)
Figure 4Kisspeptin administration does not affect appetite or food intake in healthy men. A, Following an overnight fast, 15 healthy men (age: 25.2 ± 1.1 years; BMI: 22.3 ± 0.5 kg m−2) were administered 1 nmol kg−1 h−1 kisspeptin or rate‐matched vehicle for 120 minutes, in random order. At T = 45 minutes, participants were given an ad libitum meal (which was eaten over a maximum of 20 minutes). Blood sampling was performed regularly (black arrows), with samples for metabolic profiling collected at T = −15 minutes and T = 45 minutes (green stars). Visual analogue scores (VAS) for volunteer‐reported hunger were recorded at T = −30 minutes, T = 30 minutes and T = 75 minutes. B, Mean change in pre‐meal volunteer‐reported hunger scores from T = −30 minutes to T = 30 minutes, as measured with VAS, were similar during kisspeptin (red bar) and vehicle (blue bar) administration; p = 0.8120 kisspeptin vs. vehicle (paired t‐test). C, Mean number of kcal ingested was similar during kisspeptin (red bar) and vehicle (blue bar) administration; p = 0.7178 kisspeptin vs. vehicle (paired t‐test). D, During MMTT, mean plasma kisspeptin levels were higher during kisspeptin compared with vehicle administration as expected; **** p < 0.0001 kisspeptin vs. vehicle (GEE). Data are presented as mean ± SEM; n = 15 per group