Cited by 166Pancreatic function and diabetesDiabetes Treatment and ManagementDiabetes and associated disorders

In Vivo and In Vitro Glucose-Induced Biphasic Insulin Secretion in the Mouse

Open access
Henquin, Jean-Claude, Nenquin, Myriam, Stiernet, Patrick, Ahren, Bo·2006·Diabetes

Abstract

The mechanisms underlying biphasic insulin secretion have not been completely elucidated. We compared the pattern of plasma insulin changes during hyperglycemic clamps in mice to that of glucose-induced insulin secretion and cytosolic calcium concentration ([Ca2+]c) changes in perifused mouse islets. Anesthetized mice were infused with glucose to clamp blood glucose at 8.5 (baseline), 11.1, 16.7, or 30 mmol/l. A first-phase insulin response consistently peaked at 1 min, and a slowly ascending second phase occurred at 16.7 and 30 mmol/l glucose. Glucose-induced insulin secretion in vivo is thus biphasic, with a similarly increasing second phase in the mouse as in humans. In vitro, square-wave stimulation from a baseline of 3 mmol/l glucose induced similar biphasic insulin secretion and [Ca2+]c increases, with sustained and flat second phases. The glucose dependency (3–30 mmol/l) of both changes was sigmoidal with, however, a shift to the right of the relation for insulin secretion compared with that for [Ca2+]c. The maximum [Ca2+]c increase was achieved by glucose concentrations, causing half-maximum insulin secretion. Because this was true for both phases, we propose that contrary to current concepts, amplifying signals are also implicated in first-phase glucose-induced insulin secretion. To mimic in vivo conditions, islets were stimulated with high glucose after being initially perifused with 8.5 instead of 3.0 mmol/l glucose. First-phase insulin secretion induced by glucose at 11.1, 16.7, and 30 mmol/l was decreased by ∼ 50%, an inhibition that could not be explained by commensurate decreases in [Ca2+]c or in the pool of readily releasable granules. Also unexpected was the gradually ascending pattern of the second phase, now similar to that in vivo. These observations indicated that variations in prestimulatory glucose can secondarily affect the magnitude and pattern of subsequent glucose-induced insulin secretion.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2337/diabetes.55.02.06.db05-1051

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In fed mice, the steady-state plasma insulin level at a plasma glucose of ≈9 mM is 120 pM and increases to 300 pM at glucose concentrations >16.7 mM.

    “In fed mice, the steady-state plasma insulin level at a plasma glucose of ≈9 mM is 120 pM and this increases to a steady-state concentration of 300 pM at glucose concentrations >16.7 mM (275).”

    From Pancreatic β-Cell Electrical Activity and Insulin Secretion: Of Mice and Men (2018) · cites this paper as [275]

    Table 1 (page unavailable) supports a baseline glucose level near 9 mM, but reports 90-minute insulin increases *above baseline* of 587 ± 181 pM at 16.7 mM glucose and 660 ± 122 pM at 30 mM—already greater than the claimed total steady-state level of 300 pM. Research Design and Methods (page unavailable) also says the mice were fasted for four hours before the clamps, rather than studied in a fed state. The copy does not establish the claimed baseline insulin level of 120 pM. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Henquin, J.-C., Nenquin, M., Stiernet, P., & Ahren, B.
Affiliations
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • Department of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
Venue
Diabetes
Published
2006-02-01
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
441-451
ISSN
  • 0012-1797 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-327X
OpenAlex
W2100330980
Cited by
166
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
12.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Diabetes (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion)
  • Lund University Publications (Lund University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles
  • Vetenskapsrådet
  • Direktör Albert Påhlssons Stiftelse
  • Region Skåne
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Pancreatic function and diabetes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Treatment and Management
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Diabetes and associated disorders
Keywords
biphasic insulin secretion, first-phase insulin response, second-phase insulin response, glucose-stimulated insulin secretion, intracellular calcium, pancreatic islets, hyperglycemic clamp, signal amplification
MeSH terms
Insulin Secretion, Animals, Calcium, Cytoplasm, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Female, Glucose, Insulin, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Glucose Clamp Technique, Calcium Signaling, Insulin-Secreting Cells, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review