1. Neuroscience
Download icon

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
Research Article
  • Cited 31
  • Views 2,805
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2018;7:e38704 doi: 10.7554/eLife.38704

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.

Ethics

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

Reviewing Editor

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

Publication 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

  • 2,805
    Page views
  • 584
    Downloads
  • 31
    Citations

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

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)

Further reading

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Stefano Perni, Kurt Beam
    Research Article Updated

    Junctions between the endoplasmic reticulum and plasma membrane that are induced by the neuronal junctophilins are of demonstrated importance, but their molecular architecture is still poorly understood and challenging to address in neurons. This is due to the small size of the junctions and the multiple isoforms of candidate junctional proteins in different brain areas. Using colocalization of tagged proteins expressed in tsA201 cells, and electrophysiology, we compared the interactions of JPH3 and JPH4 with different calcium channels. We found that JPH3 and JPH4 caused junctional accumulation of all the tested high-voltage-activated CaV isoforms, but not a low-voltage-activated CaV. Also, JPH3 and JPH4 noticeably modify CaV2.1 and CaV2.2 inactivation rate. RyR3 moderately colocalized at junctions with JPH4, whereas RyR1 and RyR2 did not. By contrast, RyR1 and RyR3 strongly colocalized with JPH3, and RyR2 moderately. Likely contributing to this difference, JPH3 binds to cytoplasmic domain constructs of RyR1 and RyR3, but not of RyR2.

    1. Medicine
    2. Neuroscience
    Edoardo Bistaffa et al.
    Research Article

    Background: Fatal Familial Insomnia (FFI) is a genetic prion disease caused by the D178N mutation in the prion protein gene (PRNP) in coupling phase with methionine at PRNP 129. In 2017, we have shown that the olfactory mucosa (OM) collected from FFI patients contained traces of PrPSc detectable by Protein Misfolding Cyclic Amplification (PMCA).

    Methods In this work, we have challenged PMCA generated products obtained from OM and brain homogenate of FFI patients in BvPrP-Tg407 transgenic mice expressing the bank vole prion protein to test their ability to induce prion pathology.

    Results: All inoculated mice developed mild spongiform changes, astroglial activation and PrPSc deposition mainly affecting the thalamus. However, their neuropathological alterations were different from those found in the brain of BvPrP-Tg407 mice injected with raw FFI brain homogenate.

    Conclusions: Although with some experimental constraints, we show that PrPSc present in OM of FFI patients is potentially infectious.

    Funding: This work was supported in part by the Italian Ministry of Health (GR-2013-02355724 and Ricerca Corrente), MJFF, ALZ, Alzheimer's Research UK and the Weston Brain Institute (BAND2015), and Euronanomed III (Speedy) to FM; by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad [grant AGL2016-78054-R (AEI/FEDER, UE)] to J.M.T. and J.C.E.; A.M.-M. was supported by a fellowship from the INIA (FPI-SGIT-2015-02).