Insulin regulates POMC neuronal plasticity to control glucose metabolism

  1. Garron T Dodd
  2. Natalie J Michael
  3. Robert S Lee-Young
  4. Salvatore P Mangiafico
  5. Jack T Pryor
  6. Astrid C Munder
  7. Stephanie E Simonds
  8. Jens Claus Brüning
  9. Zhong-Yin Zhang
  10. Michael A Cowley
  11. Sofianos Andrikopoulos
  12. Tamas L Horvath
  13. David Spanswick  Is a corresponding author
  14. Tony Tiganis  Is a corresponding author
  1. Monash University, Australia
  2. University of Melbourne, Australia
  3. Max Plank Institute for Metabolism Research, Germany
  4. Purdue University, United States
  5. Yale University School of Medicine, United States

Abstract

Hypothalamic neurons respond to nutritional cues by altering gene expression and neuronal excitability. The mechanisms that control such adaptive processes remain unclear. Here we define populations of POMC neurons in mice that are activated or inhibited by insulin and thereby repress or inhibit hepatic glucose production (HGP). The proportion of POMC neurons activated by insulin was dependent on the regulation of insulin receptor signaling by the phosphatase TCPTP, which is increased by fasting, degraded after feeding and elevated in diet-induced obesity. TCPTP-deficiency enhanced insulin signaling and the proportion of POMC neurons activated by insulin to repress HGP. Elevated TCPTP in POMC neurons in obesity and/or after fasting repressed insulin signaling, the activation of POMC neurons by insulin and the insulin-induced and POMC-mediated repression of HGP. Our findings define a molecular mechanism for integrating POMC neural responses with feeding to control glucose metabolism.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Garron T Dodd

    Metabolism, Diabetes and Obesity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Natalie J Michael

    Metabolism, Diabetes and Obesity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9032-0862
  3. Robert S Lee-Young

    Metabolism, Diabetes and Obesity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Salvatore P Mangiafico

    Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Jack T Pryor

    Department of Physiology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Astrid C Munder

    Metabolism, Diabetes and Obesity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Stephanie E Simonds

    Metabolism, Diabetes and Obesity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Jens Claus Brüning

    Department of Neuronal Control of Metabolism, Max Plank Institute for Metabolism Research, Cologne, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Zhong-Yin Zhang

    Department of Medicinal Chemistry and Molecular Pharmacology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Michael A Cowley

    Metabolism, Diabetes and Obesity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Sofianos Andrikopoulos

    Department of Medicine, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Tamas L Horvath

    Program in Integrative Cell Signaling and Neurobiology of Metabolism, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7522-4602
  13. David Spanswick

    Metabolism, Diabetes and Obesity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    For correspondence
    David.Spanswick@monash.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Tony Tiganis

    Metabolism, Diabetes and Obesity Program, Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
    For correspondence
    Tony.Tiganis@monash.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-8065-9942

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council

  • David Spanswick
  • Tony Tiganis

National Health and Medical Research Council

  • Michael A Cowley

National Institutes of Health

  • Tamas L Horvath

National Institutes of Health

  • Zhong-Yin Zhang

National Health and Medical Research Council

  • Sofianos Andrikopoulos

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Richard D Palmiter, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: Experiments were approved by the Monash University School of Biomedical Sciences Animal EthicsCommittee (MARP2013/137).

Version history

  1. Received: May 27, 2018
  2. Accepted: September 14, 2018
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 19, 2018 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: October 3, 2018 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2018, Dodd 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

  • 3,890
    Page views
  • 727
    Downloads
  • 78
    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)

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

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

  1. Garron T Dodd
  2. Natalie J Michael
  3. Robert S Lee-Young
  4. Salvatore P Mangiafico
  5. Jack T Pryor
  6. Astrid C Munder
  7. Stephanie E Simonds
  8. Jens Claus Brüning
  9. Zhong-Yin Zhang
  10. Michael A Cowley
  11. Sofianos Andrikopoulos
  12. Tamas L Horvath
  13. David Spanswick
  14. Tony Tiganis
(2018)
Insulin regulates POMC neuronal plasticity to control glucose metabolism
eLife 7:e38704.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38704

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.38704

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Kiwamu Kudo, Kamalini G Ranasinghe ... Srikantan S Nagarajan
    Research Article

    Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is characterized by the accumulation of amyloid-β and misfolded tau proteins causing synaptic dysfunction, and progressive neurodegeneration and cognitive decline. Altered neural oscillations have been consistently demonstrated in AD. However, the trajectories of abnormal neural oscillations in AD progression and their relationship to neurodegeneration and cognitive decline are unknown. Here, we deployed robust event-based sequencing models (EBMs) to investigate the trajectories of long-range and local neural synchrony across AD stages, estimated from resting-state magnetoencephalography. The increases in neural synchrony in the delta-theta band and the decreases in the alpha and beta bands showed progressive changes throughout the stages of the EBM. Decreases in alpha and beta band synchrony preceded both neurodegeneration and cognitive decline, indicating that frequency-specific neuronal synchrony abnormalities are early manifestations of AD pathophysiology. The long-range synchrony effects were greater than the local synchrony, indicating a greater sensitivity of connectivity metrics involving multiple regions of the brain. These results demonstrate the evolution of functional neuronal deficits along the sequence of AD progression.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Luisa Fassi, Shachar Hochman ... Roi Cohen Kadosh
    Research Article

    In recent years, there has been debate about the effectiveness of treatments from different fields, such as neurostimulation, neurofeedback, brain training, and pharmacotherapy. This debate has been fuelled by contradictory and nuanced experimental findings. Notably, the effectiveness of a given treatment is commonly evaluated by comparing the effect of the active treatment versus the placebo on human health and/or behaviour. However, this approach neglects the individual’s subjective experience of the type of treatment she or he received in establishing treatment efficacy. Here, we show that individual differences in subjective treatment - the thought of receiving the active or placebo condition during an experiment - can explain variability in outcomes better than the actual treatment. We analysed four independent datasets (N = 387 participants), including clinical patients and healthy adults from different age groups who were exposed to different neurostimulation treatments (transcranial magnetic stimulation: Studies 1 and 2; transcranial direct current stimulation: Studies 3 and 4). Our findings show that the inclusion of subjective treatment can provide a better model fit either alone or in interaction with objective treatment (defined as the condition to which participants are assigned in the experiment). These results demonstrate the significant contribution of subjective experience in explaining the variability of clinical, cognitive, and behavioural outcomes. We advocate for existing and future studies in clinical and non-clinical research to start accounting for participants’ subjective beliefs and their interplay with objective treatment when assessing the efficacy of treatments. This approach will be crucial in providing a more accurate estimation of the treatment effect and its source, allowing the development of effective and reproducible interventions.