Insulin demand regulates β cell number via the unfolded protein response

Although stem cell populations mediate regeneration of rapid turnover tissues, such as skin, blood, and gut, a stem cell reservoir has not been identified for some slower turnover tissues, such as the pancreatic islet. Despite lacking identifiable stem cells, murine pancreatic β cell number expands in response to an increase in insulin demand. Lineage tracing shows that new β cells are generated from proliferation of mature, differentiated β cells; however, the mechanism by which these mature cells sense systemic insulin demand and initiate a proliferative response remains unknown. Here, we identified the β cell unfolded protein response (UPR), which senses insulin production, as a regulator of β cell proliferation. Using genetic and physiologic models, we determined that among the population of β cells, those with an active UPR are more likely to proliferate. Moreover, subthreshold endoplasmic reticulum stress (ER stress) drove insulin demand–induced β cell proliferation, through activation of ATF6. We also confirmed that the UPR regulates proliferation of human β cells, suggesting that therapeutic UPR modulation has potential to expand β cell mass in people at risk for diabetes. Together, this work defines a stem cell–independent model of tissue homeostasis, in which differentiated secretory cells use the UPR sensor to adapt organ size to meet demand.     

Anacetrapib lowers LDL by increasing ApoB clearance in mildly hypercholesterolemic subjects

BACKGROUND. Individuals treated with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor anacetrapib exhibit a reduction in both LDL cholesterol and apolipoprotein B (ApoB) in response to monotherapy or combination therapy with a statin. It is not clear how anacetrapib exerts these effects; therefore, the goal of this study was to determine the kinetic mechanism responsible for the reduction in LDL and ApoB in response to anacetrapib.METHODS. We performed a trial of the effects of anacetrapib on ApoB kinetics. Mildly hypercholesterolemic subjects were randomized to background treatment of either placebo (n = 10) or 20 mg atorvastatin (ATV) (n = 29) for 4 weeks. All subjects then added 100 mg anacetrapib to background treatment for 8 weeks. Following each study period, subjects underwent a metabolic study to determine the LDL-ApoB-100 and proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) production rate (PR) and fractional catabolic rate (FCR).RESULTS. Anacetrapib markedly reduced the LDL-ApoB-100 pool size (PS) in both the placebo and ATV groups. These changes in PS resulted from substantial increases in LDL-ApoB-100 FCRs in both groups. Anacetrapib had no effect on LDL-ApoB-100 PRs in either treatment group. Moreover, there were no changes in the PCSK9 PS, FCR, or PR in either group. Anacetrapib treatment was associated with considerable increases in the LDL triglyceride/cholesterol ratio and LDL size by NMR.CONCLUSION. These data indicate that anacetrapib, given alone or in combination with a statin, reduces LDL-ApoB-100 levels by increasing the rate of ApoB-100 fractional clearance.TRIAL REGISTRATION. ClinicalTrials.gov {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT00990808","term_id":"NCT00990808"}}NCT00990808.FUNDING. Merck & Co. Inc., Kenilworth, New Jersey, USA. Additional support for instrumentation was obtained from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR000003 and UL1TR000040).     

Deferred consent in a minimal-risk study involving critically ill subarachnoid hemorrhage patients

INTRODUCTION:

Alterations from first-party and surrogate decision-maker consent can enhance the feasibility of research involving critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE:

To describe the use of a deferred-consent model to enable participation of critically ill patients in a minimal-risk biomarker study.

METHODS:

A prospective observational study was conducted in which serum biomarker samples were collected three times daily over the first 14 days following aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Sample collection was initiated on intensive care unit admission and consent was obtained when research personnel could approach the patient or the patient’s surrogate decision maker.

RESULTS:

Twenty-seven patients were eligible for the study, of whom only five were capable of providing informed consent. Full consent was obtained for 21 (78%) patients through self- (n=4) and surrogate (n=17) consent. Partial consent or refusal (only permitting the collection of blood samples as a part of routine care or use of data) occurred in three patients. Among the 22 consents sought from surrogates, three (11%) refused participation. The refusals included the sickest patients in the cohort. Once consent was provided, no patient or surrogate withdrew consent before study completion.

DISCUSSION:

Use of a deferred consent model enabled participation of critically ill patients in a minimal-risk biomarker study with no withdrawals.

CONCLUSIONS:

Further research and enhanced awareness of the potential utility of hybrid models, including deferred consent in addition to patient or surrogate consent, in the conduct of low-risk and minimally interventional time-sensitive studies of critically ill patients are required.