Abstract

Insulin secretion from β-cells is reduced at the onset of type-1 and during type-2 diabetes. Although inflammation and metabolic dysfunction of β-cells elicit secretory defects associated with type-1 or type-2 diabetes, accompanying changes to insulin granules have not been established. To address this, we performed detailed functional analyses of insulin granules purified from cells subjected to model treatments that mimic type-1 and type-2 diabetic conditions and discovered striking shifts in calcium affinities and fusion characteristics. We show that this behavior is correlated with two subpopulations of insulin granules whose relative abundance is differentially shifted depending on diabetic model condition. The two types of granules have different release characteristics, distinct lipid and protein compositions, and package different secretory contents alongside insulin. This complexity of β-cell secretory physiology establishes a direct link between granule subpopulation and type of diabetes and leads to a revised model of secretory changes in the diabetogenic process.

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. Alex JB Kreutzberger

    Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9774-115X
  2. Volker Kiessling

    Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-9388-5703
  3. Catherine A Doyle

    Pharmacology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Noah Schenk

    Pharmacology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Clint M Upchurch

    Pharmacology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Margaret Elmer-Dixon

    Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Amanda E Ward

    Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Julia Preobraschenski

    Neurobiology, Max Planck Institute of Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Syed S Hussein

    Microbiology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Weronika Tomaka

    Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Patrick Seelheim

    Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Iman Kattan

    Neurobiology, Max Planck Institute of Biophysical Chemistry, Göttingen, Germany
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Megan Harris

    Cell Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. Binyong Liang

    Cell Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Anne K Kenworthy

    Cell Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  16. Bimal N Desai

    Pharmacology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3928-5854
  17. Norbert Leitinger

    Pharmacology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  18. Arun Anatharam

    Pharmacology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  19. J David Castle

    Cell Biology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    For correspondence
    jdc4r@virginia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  20. Lukas K Tamm

    Molecular Physiology and Biological Physics, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, United States
    For correspondence
    lkt2e@virginia.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1674-4464

Funding

National Institutes of Health (P01 GM072694)

  • Lukas K Tamm

National Institutes of Health (R01 DK091296)

  • J David Castle

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

Copyright

© 2020, Kreutzberger 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

  • 3,185
    views
  • 492
    downloads
  • 31
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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. Alex JB Kreutzberger
  2. Volker Kiessling
  3. Catherine A Doyle
  4. Noah Schenk
  5. Clint M Upchurch
  6. Margaret Elmer-Dixon
  7. Amanda E Ward
  8. Julia Preobraschenski
  9. Syed S Hussein
  10. Weronika Tomaka
  11. Patrick Seelheim
  12. Iman Kattan
  13. Megan Harris
  14. Binyong Liang
  15. Anne K Kenworthy
  16. Bimal N Desai
  17. Norbert Leitinger
  18. Arun Anatharam
  19. J David Castle
  20. Lukas K Tamm
(2020)
Distinct insulin granule subpopulations implicated in the secretory pathology of diabetes types 1 and 2
eLife 9:e62506.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62506

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.62506

Further reading

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Kourosh Hayatigolkhatmi, Chiara Soriani ... Simona Rodighiero
    Tools and Resources

    Understanding the cell cycle at the single-cell level is crucial for cellular biology and cancer research. While current methods using fluorescent markers have improved the study of adherent cells, non-adherent cells remain challenging. In this study, we addressed this gap by combining a specialized surface to enhance cell attachment, the FUCCI(CA)2 sensor, an automated image analysis pipeline, and a custom machine learning algorithm. This approach enabled precise measurement of cell cycle phase durations in non-adherent cells. This method was validated in acute myeloid leukemia cell lines NB4 and Kasumi-1, which have unique cell cycle characteristics, and we tested the impact of cell cycle-modulating drugs on NB4 cells. Our cell cycle analysis system, which is also compatible with adherent cells, is fully automated and freely available, providing detailed insights from hundreds of cells under various conditions. This report presents a valuable tool for advancing cancer research and drug development by enabling comprehensive, automated cell cycle analysis in both adherent and non-adherent cells.

    1. Cell Biology
    Yue Miao, Yongtao Du ... Mei Ding
    Research Article

    The spatiotemporal transition of small GTPase Rab5 to Rab7 is crucial for early-to-late endosome maturation, yet the precise mechanism governing Rab5-to-Rab7 switching remains elusive. USP8, a ubiquitin-specific protease, plays a prominent role in the endosomal sorting of a wide range of transmembrane receptors and is a promising target in cancer therapy. Here, we identified that USP8 is recruited to Rab5-positive carriers by Rabex5, a guanine nucleotide exchange factor (GEF) for Rab5. The recruitment of USP8 dissociates Rabex5 from early endosomes (EEs) and meanwhile promotes the recruitment of the Rab7 GEF SAND-1/Mon1. In USP8-deficient cells, the level of active Rab5 is increased, while the Rab7 signal is decreased. As a result, enlarged EEs with abundant intraluminal vesicles accumulate and digestive lysosomes are rudimentary. Together, our results reveal an important and unexpected role of a deubiquitinating enzyme in endosome maturation.