Characterization of {beta}-cell function impairment in first-degree relatives of type 2 diabetic subjects: modeling analysis of 24-h triple-meal tests

Andrea Mari,1 Amalia Gastaldelli,2 Andrea Natali,2 Torben Ostergard,3 Ole Schmitz,3 and Ele Ferrannini2

1Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Institute of Biomedical Engineering, Padua; 2Department of Internal Medicine and Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche Institute of Clinical Physiology at the University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy; and 3Department of Medicine M (Endocrinology and Diabetes), University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark

Submitted 19 April 2004 ; accepted in final form 25 October 2004


    ABSTRACT
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 SUBJECTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
To investigate early secretory defects in prediabetes, we evaluated {beta}-Cell function and insulin sensitivity (M value, by euglycemic clamp) in 26 normotolerant first-degree relatives of type 2 diabetic patients (FDR) and 17 age- and weight-matched control subjects. {beta}-Cell function was assessed by modeling analysis of glucose and C-peptide concentrations measured during 24 h of standardized living conditions. Fasting and total insulin secretion (ISR) were increased in FDR, as was ISR at a reference 5 mM glucose level (ISR5, 107 ± 6 vs. 87 ± 6 pmol· min–1·m–2, P < 0.05). ISR5 was inversely related to M in controls (ISR5 = k/M1.23, {rho} = –0.74, P < 0.005) but not in FDR; when M was accounted for (by calculating a compensation index ISR5·M1.23), compensation for insulin resistance was impaired in FDR (10.8 ± 1.0 vs. 13.4 ± 0.6 units, P < 0.05). Potentiation of ISR, expressing relative transient increases in glucose-stimulated ISR during meals, was impaired in FDR (1.29 ± 0.08 vs. 1.62 ± 0.08 during 1st meal, P < 0.02). Moreover, the potentiation time course was related to glucose-dependent insulin-releasing polypeptide (GIP) concentrations in both groups, and the sensitivity of potentiation to GIP derived from this relationship tended to be impaired in FDR. Compensation index, potentiation, and sensitivity to GIP were interrelated parameters (P < 0.05 or less). {beta}-Cell function parameters were also related to mean 24-h glucose levels (r2 = 0.63, P < 0.0001, multivariate model). In conclusion, although in absolute terms ISR is increased in insulin-resistant FDR, {beta}-cell function shows a cluster of interrelated abnormalities involving compensation for insulin resistance, potentiation, and sensitivity to GIP, suggesting a {beta}-cell defect in the amplifying pathway of insulin secretion.

insulin secretion; insulin sensitivity; glucose tolerance; mathematical models


NORMOTOLERANT FIRST-DEGREE RELATIVES of type 2 diabetic subjects (FDR) are an interesting model for the identification of early abnormalities of glucose homeostasis, which may be crucial to understanding the development of glucose intolerance. Although not all reports are in agreement, FDR subjects are frequently insulin resistant and exhibit {beta}-cell function abnormalities (8, 11, 20), in particular if the degree of insulin resistance is taken into account (2). This concept has been more clearly established using intravenous tests (hyperglycemic clamp, intravenous glucose tolerance test), as the assessment of {beta}-cell function from an oral glucose load or mixed meal is complicated by the necessity to account for varying glucose levels. Thus the role that defective {beta}-cell function plays under normal living conditions is still undetermined.

To assess {beta}-cell function in a state approximating free living, we have employed a 24-h, multiple-meal test with modeling analysis to quantify {beta}-cell function and the euglycemic insulin clamp to measure insulin sensitivity. We also evaluated the role of gastrointestinal incretin hormones in insulin secretion.


    SUBJECTS AND METHODS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 SUBJECTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Experimental Protocols

Subjects. Data for the assessment of insulin secretion and insulin sensitivity were taken from a previous study (16). Twenty-six FDR and 17 subjects without any history of type 2 diabetes (control subjects) participated in the study. FDR and control subjects were closely matched for sex, age, and body mass index (BMI), were healthy, and had a normal oral glucose tolerance test according to the American Diabetes Association criteria (Table 1). Within the offspring group, six subjects had one parent with type 2 diabetes, 13 had one parent and two or more known second-degree relatives with type 2 diabetes, and seven had two FDR relatives (both parents). The 26 relatives were from 22 unrelated families; if more than two offspring were available in a family, a maximum of two were randomly selected to participate. The control group was recruited by advertising from healthy volunteers without any family history of diabetes. Subjects in the control group were all unrelated, healthy, and of Caucasian origin and were taking no medication. Participants were asked to consume a weight-maintaining diet containing ≥250 g of carbohydrate for 3 days before all examinations, and none was engaged in heavy physical exercise during this period. A questionnaire (18) dealing with daily physical activity patterns during work and leisure did not show differences between the two groups. All subjects underwent a 24-h triple-meal test and a hyperinsulinemic euglycemic glucose clamp on separate days, as briefly described below. Written informed consent was obtained from all subjects, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the County of Aarhus. Additional details on the subjects’ characteristics and experimental procedures can be found in Ref. 16. Part of the results in the control group have been reported previously (13).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 1. Characteristics of the subjects

 
Twenty-four-hour meal tests. The subjects arrived at the clinical research unit at 7:30 AM after an overnight fast. An intravenous cannula was placed in an antecubital vein for blood sampling. Three meals were served: breakfast at 8:00 AM, lunch at 12:00 noon, and dinner at 6:00 PM. Total energy intake was ~10 MJ for men and ~8 MJ for women (30% breakfast, 35% lunch, and 35% dinner). Distribution of energy intake (carbohydrates-fat-protein) was 50:37:13% for breakfast, 38:49:13% for lunch, and 50:33:17% for dinner. Blood samples for the measurement of glucose, insulin, C-peptide, free fatty acids (FFA), glucose-dependent insulin-releasing polypeptide (GIP), and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) were drawn every 30 min in correspondence with the meals, and every hour during the remaining periods, for a total of 24 h.

Euglycemic hyperinsulinemic clamp. A 2.5-h euglycemic hyperinsulinemic glucose clamp was performed in all subjects in the morning on the day after the 24-h test. The insulin infusion rate was 1 mU·min–1·kg–1 (6 pmol·min–1·kg–1), and plasma glucose was clamped at ~5 mM. Insulin-stimulated glucose uptake (M value) was calculated as the average glucose infusion rate between times 120 and 150 min, and was expressed in micromoles per minute per kilogram of lean body mass, as measured by bioelectric impedance. Plasma glucose, insulin, C-peptide, FFA, GIP, and GLP-1 concentrations were measured as previously reported (16). The assay for GIP and GLP-1 available at the time of measurement allowed determination of total hormone concentration only.

Modeling Analysis

The {beta}-cell model used in the present study, describing the relationship between insulin secretion and glucose concentration, has been previously illustrated in detail (13, 14). Insulin secretion, S(t), consists of two components:

The first component, Sg(t), represents the dependence of insulin secretion on absolute glucose concentration (G) at any time point and is characterized by a dose-response function, f(G), relating the two variables. Characteristic parameters of the dose response are its mean slope in the 5–7 mM glucose range, denoted here as glucose sensitivity, and insulin secretion at a fixed glucose concentration of 5 mM (approximately the normal fasting level), ISR5. The dose response is modulated by a potentiation factor, P(t), which is a positive function of time, averaging 1 during the experiment:

In the present context, the term potentiation refers to the fact that insulin secretion during the 24-h test can be higher or lower than that predicted by a simple dose-response model. In this sense, P(t) expresses a relative potentiation of insulin secretion, which encompasses physiological mechanisms that have a different origin and are known in the literature by different names. Among these mechanisms, the most prominent are the glucose-mediated potentiation, discussed, e.g., by Cerasi (5), and the potentiating effects of the gastrointestinal hormones (6).

The second insulin secretion component represents a dynamic dependence of insulin secretion on the rate of change of glucose concentration, expressed as

This component is termed derivative component, and is determined by a single parameter (kd), denoted as rate sensitivity. From these, estimated model parameters [the parameters of the dose response f(G) and the potentiation factor P(t); see Refs. 13 and 14 for details] and total and basal insulin secretion are calculated. The potentiation factor was found to be linearly correlated with plasma GIP concentration on a minute-by-minute basis (see RESULTS). A GIP potentiation index was calculated as the slope of the individual regression lines.

Statistical Analysis

All data are presented as means ± SE. The Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare group differences. Associations were tested by Spearman correlation, unless otherwise stated. Multiple regression analysis was carried out using standard techniques.


    RESULTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 SUBJECTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
Twenty-Four-Hour Concentration Profiles

Figure 1 shows the mean 24-h profiles of plasma glucose, insulin, and C-peptide concentrations. Mean 24-h glucose was slightly but significantly higher in FDR than in control subjects (Table 1). Mean 24-h total plasma GIP (28 ± 3 vs. 34 ± 2 pM in control subjects and FDR, respectively) and GLP-1 concentrations (18 ± 1 vs. 17 ± 1 pM) were similar in the two groups. Mean 24-h FFA levels were not different between control and FDR subjects (0.42 ± 0.02 vs. 0.45 ± 0.02 mM). Fasting (0.54 ± 0.05 vs. 0.52 ± 0.05 mM) and nocturnal (0.55 ± 0.02 vs. 0.57 ± 0.03 mM) levels were also not different.



View larger version (27K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 1. Plasma glucose, C-peptide, and insulin concentrations (means ± SE) during the 24-h test in normotolerant first-degree relatives of type 2 diabetic patients (FDR; solid circles and solid lines) and control subjects (open squares and broken lines). Lines represent the model fit for glucose and C-peptide; insulin data are linearly interpolated.

 
Twenty-Four-Hour Insulin Secretion

Figure 2 shows the 24-h insulin secretion profiles. Total insulin secretion during the whole day was 40% higher in FDR than in control subjects, as was the mean nocturnal insulin secretion rate (Table 2).



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 2. Insulin secretion during the 24-h test in FDR (solid circles and solid lines) and control subjects (open squares and broken lines). Symbols and SE bars are shown at 30-min intervals.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Table 2. {beta}-Cell function parameters and insulin sensitivity

 
{beta}-Cell Function Parameters

The model-derived {beta}-cell dose-response function is shown in Fig. 3, and the {beta}-cell function parameters ISR5, glucose sensitivity, and kd are given in Table 2. Daily and nocturnal insulin secretion, the {beta}-cell response at 5 mM glucose, and the early secretion phase (represented by the kd) were increased in FDR.



View larger version (13K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 3. Model-derived {beta}-cell dose response in FDR (solid circles and solid lines) and control subjects (open squares and broken lines). SE bars are shown at 1 mM glucose increments.

 
The 24-h profiles of the potentiation factor are shown in Fig. 4. Stimulation of potentiation during meals was less pronounced in FDR; in particular, the mean potentiation factor during the first 2 h of the test was 20% lower in FDR than in control subjects (Table 2). This difference in potentiation was also confirmed using an index that quantifies the average rise in potentiation factor during meals. This index, calculated as the average on the three meals of the mean potentiation factor increment above the premeal level (mean over the first 2 h of each meal), was lower in FDR than in controls (0.22 ± 0.07 vs. 0.50 ± 0.05, P < 0.02). Because by assumption the 24-h mean potentiation factor is 1, in FDR subjects the lower meal potentiation peaks are accompanied by higher nocturnal and between-meal potentiation levels.



View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 4. Time course of the model-derived potentiation factor in FDR (solid circles and solid lines) and control subjects (open squares and broken lines). Symbols and SE bars are shown at 30-min intervals.

 
Relationship Between Insulin Sensitivity and {beta}-Cell Function

M was ~30% lower in FDR than in control subjects (Table 2). In control subjects, M was reciprocally related to the insulin secretion rate at 5 mM ({rho} = –0.74, P = 0.003). This relationship could be described by the power function ISR5 = 13,050/M1.23; an index of compensation for insulin resistance was thus calculated in each subject as ISR5·M1.23. The correlation between ISR5 and M in FDR was not significant ({rho} = –0.13, P = 0.53); in addition, the data fell to the left of those of the control subjects (Fig. 5), and the calculated compensation index was significantly lower (10.8 ± 1.0 vs. 13.4 ± 0.6 arbitrary units, P < 0.05), indicating impaired {beta}-cell compensation for insulin resistance. In the pooled data from the whole study group, the compensation index was positively related to the potentiation factor value measured during the first 2 h ({rho} = 0.42, P < 0.005).



View larger version (16K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 
Fig. 5. Relationship between insulin sensitivity (M) and insulin secretion at 5 mM glucose (ISR5) in FDR (solid circles) and control subjects (open squares). Solid line represents the equation ISR5 = 13,050/M1.23, which is the normal compensation function. Points below this line represent subjects having compensation for insulin resistance below mean normal levels; points above the line correspond to subjects with compensation above normal.

 
In the pooled data from the whole study group, M was also strongly correlated with total and nocturnal insulin secretion ({rho} = –0.73 and –0.65, respectively, P < 0.0001); these correlations were significant also in the individual groups, with {rho} = –0.65. In contrast, the correlation of M with glucose sensitivity was much weaker ({rho} = –0.38, P < 0.02); in the individual groups, the correlation was significant only in controls ({rho} = –0.52, P < 0.05).

Regulation of Basal Secretory Tone

The mechanisms regulating the increase with insulin resistance of the basal secretory tone, as assessed by nocturnal insulin output, were different in the two groups. In control subjects, the increase in the basal secretory tone with insulin resistance was mostly mediated by upregulation of {beta}-cell function by augmentation of ISR5, with a marginal role of glucose levels. In fact, in control subjects nocturnal insulin output was linearly related to ISR5 without a statistically significant independent contribution of mean nocturnal glucose (partial r for ISR5 = 0.78, P < 0.0005; partial r for nocturnal glucose = 0.43, P = 0.096). In contrast, in FDR the increase of the basal secretory tone involved the development of mild basal hyperglycemia: nocturnal insulin output was linearly related to both ISR5 and nocturnal glucose (partial r’s of 0.68 and 0.74, respectively, P < 0.0001 for both; overall r = 0.83, P < 0.0001). This significant dependence of nocturnal secretion on glucose rather than on ISR5 alone in FDR was not due to the presence of severely resistant subjects in the group, in which adaptation of ISR5 to insulin resistance was insufficient (Fig. 5, leftmost subjects); in the FDR subgroup with M within the normal range (n = 10), nocturnal secretion was still strongly related to nocturnal glucose (partial r’s of 0.75, P < 0.02, and 0.94, P < 0.0002, for ISR5 and glucose, respectively; overall r = 0.95, P < 0.0001).

This indicates that, although in control subjects the upregulation of the {beta}-cell dose response with insulin resistance (Fig. 5) is complete and preserves normal glucose levels, in FDR the upregulation is incomplete, and mild basal hyperglycemia develops.

Gastrointestinal Hormones and Potentiation

Plasma GIP concentrations and the potentiation factor were generally correlated with each other on a minute-by-minute basis (i.e., at corresponding sampling times during the 24-h measurement period) in each subject. The correlation was statistically significant in ~50% of the individual cases in both groups. To obtain an average figure of the degree of correlation, the pooled data of each group (control or FDR) were analyzed by multiple linear regression by using the potentiation factor values at all time points of all subjects of each group as independent variable, GIP concentrations as dependent variable, and distinct slope coefficients for each subject. The correlation was highly significant (control subjects, r = 0.49, P < 0.0001; FDR, r = 0.38, P < 0.0001). Correlation with GLP-1 was somewhat weaker; plasma GLP-1 concentrations were directly related to the potentiation factor in 20% of control subjects and 35% of FDR.

The GIP potentiation index tended to be decreased in FDR (5.7 ± 1.1 vs. 10.7 ± 1.7 nM–1, P = 0.056). In the whole study group, this index was positively related to the potentiation factor measured during the first 2 h of the test ({rho} = 0.44, P < 0.003). This suggests that impaired potentiation and reduced sensitivity to GIP in FDR are related phenomena.

The relationship between gastrointestinal hormones and insulin secretion was specific for the potentiation factor. We did not find significant associations with other {beta}-cell function parameters. In particular, neither GIP nor GLP-1 was related to fasting insulin secretion, total insulin output, or insulin secretion at 5 mM glucose. Furthermore, the potentiation factor during the first 2 h was not related to the mean nocturnal or fasting FFA levels either in the whole data set or in the individual groups.

Determinants of Glucose Tolerance

By multivariate analysis of the whole data set, glucose tolerance, as expressed by the mean 24-h glucose level, was independently related (after logarithmic transformation of variables) to the potentiation factor (partial r = –0.57, P = 0.006), the compensation index (r = –0.65, P < 0.0001), and glucose sensitivity (r = –0.38, P = 0.015) (with a total explained variance of 63%), whereas mean GIP and GLP-1 concentrations did not reach statistical significance as independent predictors. M, which in univariate analysis was correlated to glucose tolerance (r = –0.64, P < 0001), did not reach statistical significance in multivariate analysis.


    DISCUSSION
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 SUBJECTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
FDR are a high-risk group whose pathophysiological features are rather heterogeneous. In some studies in these subjects, insulin resistance was the dominant metabolic abnormality; in others, some defect in glucose-induced insulin secretion was the distinguishing feature (reviewed in Ref. 8). It is nevertheless generally accepted that some abnormality in {beta}-cell function is present in most FDR subjects and forms the basis for their enhanced risk of becoming diabetic (8, 11, 20). The nature of this secretory dysfunction, however, is still incompletely characterized. One problem is the quantitative assessment of {beta}-cell function, for which there is no gold standard as is the case for insulin sensitivity. The evaluation of {beta}-cell function is also complicated by the need to account for insulin resistance, which is often present in FDR subjects.

In the present study, we selected normotolerant FDR, rigorously matched for age, sex, and BMI to a control group of normotolerant subjects with negative family history of type 2 diabetes. To characterize {beta}-cell function under normal living conditions, we analyzed data from a 24-h triple-meal test by use of a mathematical model. The model retains the known constitutive characteristics of {beta}-cell secretory function: the ability to respond to glucose in a dose-response fashion, the ability to respond rapidly to a rapid glucose increase (represented by the rate component), and the ability to potentiate the secretory response during sustained hyperglycemia or after release of incretin hormones. This model has proved effective in previous applications (1, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14). Although the {beta}-cell exhibits such a complex behavior that all models are necessarily approximate, {beta}-cell models are nevertheless an indispensable tool for the analysis of meal tests, as empirical {beta}-cell function indexes do not bear a clear relation to {beta}-cell physiology.

The novelty of this work is thus the quantitative analysis of {beta}-cell function by means of a mathematical model under conditions approximating normal living. The use of a 24-h test is particularly relevant for {beta}-cell function, because shorter tests do not fully disclose the complexity of {beta}-cell responses (13). Furthermore, the analysis of the dynamic characteristics of insulin secretion, the investigation of the mechanisms of {beta}-cell adaptation to insulin resistance, and the examination of the role of the incretin hormones reveal aspects of {beta}-cell function that cannot be evaluated with more traditional intravenous tests.

First, this work shows that the ability to upregulate tonic {beta}-cell function in response to insulin resistance is compromised in FDR (as shown by loss of correlation with insulin sensitivity, impaired compensation index, development of mild hyperglycemia to sustain basal insulin secretion). This defect has been previously identified in part by use of intravenous glucose (2); the current study detects this defect under normal living conditions, describes its characteristics more precisely, and shows that it plays a role in determining glucose tolerance. In agreement with previous work (9), we have also found that the {beta}-cell function parameter that best represents adaptation to insulin resistance is the basal secretory tone, whereas other {beta}-cell function parameters are less sensitive, or not at all insensitive, to insulin resistance. In addition, we show for the first time that the basal secretory tone is regulated differently in control and FDR subjects. In the presence of insulin resistance, control subjects are able to increase the basal secretory tone solely by modulating the {beta}-cell dose response (ISR5 upregulation) so that basal glycemia remains constant, whereas in FDR subjects the ISR5 upregulation is inappropriate, and mild hyperglycemia develops.

Second, we have found that glucose sensitivity is not compromised in FDR (Table 2 and Fig. 3); this indicates that the glucose-sensing ability of {beta}-cells is intact in FDR at this stage of the condition, i.e., when subjects are young and glucose tolerance is still normal. This result extends to the normal living condition the observation made by Byrne et al. (4), who found a slightly steeper increase in insulin secretion rates in FDR than in control subjects in response to graded intravenous glucose infusions. Furthermore, in contrast to tonic insulin secretion, glucose sensitivity was largely unrelated to insulin sensitivity, as we have previously reported in other conditions (10). This finding clearly implies that insulin sensitivity is functionally linked with some {beta}-cell responses but not others.

Third, we found that potentiation of glucose-induced insulin release, which is one of the determinants of glucose tolerance (9, 10), was impaired in FDR. In addition, this defect was found to be related to the defect in compensation for insulin resistance. Whether these dynamic abnormalities are indicative of a common cellular defect is not known, although it is tempting to speculate that acute potentiation (the potentiation peak at breakfast) and chronic potentiation (adaptation to insulin resistance) may be two aspects of the same phenomenon.

Fourth, although we have observed a minute-by-minute relationship between the potentiation factor and GIP concentrations in FDR, as previously reported in control subjects (13) and expected on the basis of GIP physiology, the slope of this relationship was considerably reduced in FDR, albeit with borderline significance. This is suggestive of a decreased sensitivity to GIP in FDR. Furthermore, the association between the potentiation factor during the first 2 h of the test and the sensitivity to GIP suggests that the relative insensitivity to GIP in FDR and the decreased potentiation response may be part of the same {beta}-cell defect. Of note is that a decreased {beta}-cell sensitivity to GIP in FDR has been previously observed with intravenous administration of glucose and GIP (15).

Finally, kd, which accounts for the prompt initial secretory response during a meal and is likely linked to first-phase insulin secretion (14), was significantly increased in FDR. The model-derived kd has limited precision (13). However, an increased initial response is confirmed by the calculation of the average insulinogenic index (average ratio of insulin and glucose increments 30 min after ingestion of each of the three meals). This index tended to be increased in FDR (140 ± 15 vs. 101 ± 7 pM/mM, P = 0.06 vs. control subjects). Most of the reports favor the view that first-phase insulin secretion is impaired in FDR (8, 11, 20). In our study group, compensation for insulin resistance may have masked this phenomenon [although we, like others (2), did not observe a relationship between first-phase secretion markers and insulin sensitivity]; alternatively, this discrepancy may originate from the intrinsic difference between insulin secretion during a meal and the acute insulin response to intravenous glucose, as already pointed out (10).

The presence of subtle {beta}-cell function abnormalities associated with insulin resistance but only minimal hyperglycemia (~0.25 mM over 24 h; Table 1) and the relationship between the parameters of {beta}-cell function and mean 24-h glucose levels (extensively discussed in Ref. 10) resubmit the dilemma of whether the {beta}-cell defects are the cause or consequence, through glucotoxicity (17), of hyperglycemia. This cannot be decided from this cross-sectional study. However, it should be noted that the glucotoxicity vicious circle can start only if {beta}-cell function is defective ab origine, because otherwise the {beta}-cell would be capable of maintaining normal glucose tolerance in the presence of insulin resistance. Thus the finding that FDR subjects present abnormalities in the adaptation of the {beta}-cell to insulin resistance is interesting, as this is the kind of defect that may trigger the glucotoxicity vicious circle.

Taken together, our results indicate that {beta}-cell dysfunction in FDR involves late rather than early insulin release during meals and in particular the mechanisms of potentiation and compensation for insulin resistance. These abnormalities are suggestive of a common {beta}-cell defect, which can tentatively be ascribed to some step in the so-called amplifying (or KATP-independent) pathway of insulin secretion [as opposed to the triggering or KATP-dependent pathway (3, 12, 19)]. Although we do not have cellular markers to support this conclusion, current understanding of the {beta}-cell machinery is compatible with this hypothesis. For instance, cAMP, which belongs to the GIP signaling cascade, is reputed to interact with the amplifying pathway (3, 12, 19). The meal-induced potentiation observed in this study may also originate from prolonged exposure to glucose, similarly to what occurs during a hyperglycemic clamp. The glucose-induced potentiation seen with prolonged hyperglycemia is usually referred to as time-dependent potentiation (TDP), which is also thought to be a component of the amplifying pathway, although it is poorly understood (19). The cellular basis for the phenomenon of compensation for insulin resistance is unknown. However, the same mechanisms underlying acute TDP may also be involved in the compensation for insulin resistance, as the latter can be viewed as a long-term form of the former. It has been proposed that phospholipase C and protein kinase C are involved in this process (21); although their role is controversial, these factors are also reputed to be involved in the amplifying pathway (12).

In summary, in our group of insulin-resistant first-degree relatives of diabetic subjects, we have established that {beta}-cell defects are present under normal living conditions. These defects consist of a cluster of subtle, interrelated abnormalities, involving potentiation, {beta}-cell sensitivity to GIP, and compensation for insulin resistance, and are suggestive of a common defect in the amplifying pathway of insulin secretion. In contrast, early insulin release, as a marker of the triggering pathway, does not appear to be impaired. These {beta}-cell defects are related to glucose tolerance.


    GRANTS
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 SUBJECTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 
This work was supported by funding from an EFSD-Novo Nordisk Type 2 Programme Focused Research Grant and funds from the Italian Ministry of University and Scientific Research (MURST prot. 2001065883_001).


    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
We thank Annette Mengel for expert technical assistance and Dr. Jens J. Holst, Copenhagen, for performing the incretin hormone analyses.


    FOOTNOTES
 

Address for reprint requests and other correspondence: A. Mari, ISIB-CNR, Corso Stati Uniti 4, 35127 Padua, Italy (E-mail: andrea.mari{at}isib.cnr.it)

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. The article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.


    REFERENCES
 TOP
 ABSTRACT
 SUBJECTS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 GRANTS
 REFERENCES
 

  1. AhrénB, Holst JJ, and Mari A. Characterization of GLP-1 effects on beta-cell function after meal ingestion in humans. Diabetes Care 26: 2860–2864, 2003.
  2. BonadonnaRC, Stumvoll M, Fritsche A, Muggeo M, Haring H, Bonora E, and van Haeften TW. Altered homeostatic adaptation of first- and second-phase beta-cell secretion in the offspring of patients with type 2 diabetes: studies with a minimal model to assess beta-cell function. Diabetes 52: 470–480, 2003.
  3. Bratanova-TochkovaTK, Cheng H, Daniel S, Gunawardana S, Liu YJ, Mulvaney-Musa J, Schermerhorn T, Straub SG, Yajima H, and Sharp GW. Triggering and augmentation mechanisms, granule pools, and biphasic insulin secretion. Diabetes 51, Suppl 1: S83–90, 2002.
  4. ByrneMM, Sturis J, Sobel RJ, and Polonsky KS. Elevated plasma glucose 2 h postchallenge predicts defects in {beta}-cell function. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 270: E572–E579, 1996.
  5. CerasiE. Differential actions of glucose on insulin release: re-evaluation of a mathematical model. In: Carbohydrate Metabolism. Quantitative Physiology and Mathematical Modelling, edited by Cobelli C and Bergman RN. Chichester, UK: Wiley, 1981, p. 3–22.
  6. CreutzfeldtW. The entero-insular axis in type 2 diabetes—incretins as therapeutic agents. Exp Clin Endocrinol Diabetes 109, Suppl 2: S288–S303, 2001.
  7. DeFronzoR, Gastaldelli A, Miyazaki Y, Matsuda M, Mari A, and Ferrannini E. Critical evaluation of insulin secretion in NGT, IGT, and T2DM subjects (Abstract). Diabetes 52, Suppl 1: A335, 2003.
  8. FerranniniE. Insulin resistance versus insulin deficiency in non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: problems and prospects. Endocr Rev 19: 477–490, 1998.
  9. FerranniniE, Gastaldelli A, Miyazaki Y, Matsuda M, Pettiti M, Natali A, Mari A, and DeFronzo RA. Predominant role of reduced {beta}-cell sensitivity to glucose over insulin resistance in impaired glucose tolerance. Diabetologia 46: 1211–1219, 2003.
  10. FerranniniE and Mari A. Beta cell function and its relation to insulin action in humans: a critical appraisal. Diabetologia 47: 943–956, 2004.
  11. GerichJE. The genetic basis of type 2 diabetes mellitus: impaired insulin secretion versus impaired insulin sensitivity. Endocr Rev 19: 491–503, 1998.
  12. HenquinJC. Triggering and amplifying pathways of regulation of insulin secretion by glucose. Diabetes 49: 1751–1760, 2000.
  13. MariA, Schmitz O, Gastaldelli A, Oestergaard T, Nyholm B, and Ferrannini E. Meal and oral glucose tests for the assessment of {beta}-cell function: modeling analysis in normal subjects. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 282: E1159–E1166, 2002.
  14. MariA, Tura A, Gastaldelli A, and Ferrannini E. Assessing insulin secretion by modeling in multiple-meal tests: role of potentiation. Diabetes 51, Suppl 1: S221–S226, 2002.
  15. MeierJJ, Hucking K, Holst JJ, Deacon CF, Schmiegel WH, and Nauck MA. Reduced insulinotropic effect of gastric inhibitory polypeptide in first-degree relatives of patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 50: 2497–2504, 2001.
  16. NyholmB, Walker M, Gravholt CH, Shearing PA, Sturis J, Alberti KG, Holst JJ, and Schmitz O. Twenty-four-hour insulin secretion rates, circulating concentrations of fuel substrates and gut incretin hormones in healthy offspring of Type II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetic parents: evidence of several aberrations. Diabetologia 42: 1314–1323, 1999.
  17. RossettiL, Giaccari A, and DeFronzo RA. Glucose toxicity. Diabetes Care 13: 610–630, 1990.
  18. SaltinB and Grimby G. Physiological analysis of middle-aged and old former athletes. Comparison with still active athletes of the same ages. Circulation 38: 1104–1115, 1968.
  19. StraubSG and Sharp GW. Glucose-stimulated signaling pathways in biphasic insulin secretion. Diabetes Metab Res Rev 18: 451–463, 2002.
  20. VanHaeften TW. Early disturbances in insulin secretion in the development of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Mol Cell Endocrinol 197: 197–204, 2002.
  21. ZawalichWS and Zawalich KC. Regulation of insulin secretion by phospholipase C. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 271: E409–E416, 1996.




This Article
Abstract
Full Text (PDF)
All Versions of this Article:
288/3/E541    most recent
00175.2004v1
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Citation Map
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Articles by Mari, A.
Articles by Ferrannini, E.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Mari, A.
Articles by Ferrannini, E.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2005 by the American Physiological Society.