1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
Download icon

Blockade of glucagon signaling prevents or reverses diabetes onset only if residual β-cells persist

  1. Nicolas Damond
  2. Fabrizio Thorel
  3. Julie S Moyers
  4. Maureen J Charron
  5. Patricia M Vuguin
  6. Alvin C Powers
  7. Pedro L Herrera  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Geneva, Switzerland
  2. Eli Lilly and Company, United States
  3. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, United States
  4. Columbia University, United States
  5. Vanderbilt University, United States
Research Article
  • Cited 36
  • Views 2,886
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e13828 doi: 10.7554/eLife.13828

Abstract

Glucagon secretion dysregulation in diabetes fosters hyperglycemia. Recent studies report that mice lacking glucagon receptor (Gcgr-/-) do not develop diabetes following streptozotocin (STZ)-mediated ablation of insulin-producing β-cells. Here, we show that diabetes prevention in STZ-treated Gcgr-/- animals requires remnant insulin action originating from spared residual β-cells: these mice indeed became hyperglycemic after insulin receptor blockade. Accordingly, Gcgr-/- mice developed hyperglycemia after induction of a more complete, diphtheria toxin (DT)-induced β-cell loss, a situation of near-absolute insulin deficiency similar to type 1 diabetes. In addition, glucagon deficiency did not impair the natural capacity of ncy did not impair the natural capacity α-cells to reprogram into insulin production after extreme β-cell loss. α-to-β-cell conversion was improved in Gcgr-/- mice as a consequence of α-cell hyperplasia. Collectively, these results indicate that glucagon antagonism could i) be a useful adjuvant therapy in diabetes only when residual insulin action persists, and ii) help devising future β-cell regeneration therapies relying upon α-cell reprogramming.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Nicolas Damond

    Department of Genetic Medicine, Development of the Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Genomics in Geneva, Centre facultaire du diabète, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Fabrizio Thorel

    Department of Genetic Medicine, Development of the Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Genomics in Geneva, Centre facultaire du diabète, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Julie S Moyers

    Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, United States
    Competing interests
    Julie S Moyers, J.S.M. is an employee and shareholder of Eli Lilly and Company.
  4. Maureen J Charron

    Departments of Biochemistry, Medicine, and Obstetrics & Gynecology and Women's Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  5. Patricia M Vuguin

    Pediatric Endocrinology, Women's and Childrens Health, College of Physicians & Surgeons, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  6. Alvin C Powers

    Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology & Metabolism, Department of Medicine, Department of Molecular Physiology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  7. Pedro L Herrera

    Department of Genetic Medicine, Development of the Faculty of Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Genomics in Geneva, Centre facultaire du diabète, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland
    For correspondence
    Pedro.Herrera@unige.ch
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All mice were housed and treated in accordance with the guidelines and regulations of the Direction Générale de la Santé, state of Geneva (license number GE/103/14).

Reviewing Editor

  1. Guy Rutter

Publication history

  1. Received: December 18, 2015
  2. Accepted: April 7, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 19, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 18, 2016 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2016, Damond et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,886
    Page views
  • 746
    Downloads
  • 36
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Scopus, Crossref, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Structural Biology and Molecular Biophysics
    Thuy-Lan V Lite et al.
    Research Article

    Protein-protein interaction specificity is often encoded at the primary sequence level. However, the contributions of individual residues to specificity are usually poorly understood and often obscured by mutational robustness, sequence degeneracy, and epistasis. Using bacterial toxin-antitoxin systems as a model, we screened a combinatorially complete library of antitoxin variants at three key positions against two toxins. This library enabled us to measure the effect of individual substitutions on specificity in hundreds of genetic backgrounds. These distributions allow inferences about the general nature of interface residues in promoting specificity. We find that positive and negative contributions to specificity are neither inherently coupled nor mutually exclusive. Further, a wild-type antitoxin appears optimized for specificity as no substitutions improve discrimination between cognate and non-cognate partners. By comparing crystal structures of paralogous complexes, we provide a rationale for our observations. Collectively, this work provides a generalizable approach to understanding the logic of molecular recognition.

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Microbiology and Infectious Disease
    Qi Yang et al.
    Research Article

    The Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, its receptor binding domain (RBD), and its primary receptor ACE2 are extensively glycosylated. The impact of this post-translational modification on viral entry is yet unestablished. We expressed different glycoforms of the Spike-protein and ACE2 in CRISPR-Cas9 glycoengineered cells, and developed corresponding SARS-CoV-2 pseudovirus. We observed that N- and O-glycans had only minor contribution to Spike-ACE2 binding. However, these carbohydrates played a major role in regulating viral entry. Blocking N-glycan biosynthesis at the oligomannose stage using both genetic approaches and the small molecule kifunensine dramatically reduced viral entry into ACE2 expressing HEK293T cells. Blocking O-glycan elaboration also partially blocked viral entry. Mechanistic studies suggest multiple roles for glycans during viral entry. Among them, inhibition of N-glycan biosynthesis enhanced Spike-protein proteolysis. This could reduce RBD presentation on virus, lowering binding to host ACE2 and decreasing viral entry. Overall, chemical inhibitors of glycosylation may be evaluated for COVID-19.