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

  • 3,316
    views
  • 33
    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. Cell Biology
    Affiong Ika Oqua, Kin Chao ... Alejandra Tomas
    Research Article

    G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are integral membrane proteins which closely interact with their plasma membrane lipid microenvironment. Cholesterol is a lipid enriched at the plasma membrane with pivotal roles in the control of membrane fluidity and maintenance of membrane microarchitecture, directly impacting on GPCR stability, dynamics, and function. Cholesterol extraction from pancreatic beta cells has previously been shown to disrupt the internalisation, clustering, and cAMP responses of the glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R), a class B1 GPCR with key roles in the control of blood glucose levels via the potentiation of insulin secretion in beta cells and weight reduction via the modulation of brain appetite control centres. Here, we unveil the detrimental effect of a high cholesterol diet on GLP-1R-dependent glucoregulation in vivo, and the improvement in GLP-1R function that a reduction in cholesterol synthesis using simvastatin exerts in pancreatic islets. We next identify and map sites of cholesterol high occupancy and residence time on active vs inactive GLP-1Rs using coarse-grained molecular dynamics (cgMD) simulations, followed by a screen of key residues selected from these sites and detailed analyses of the effects of mutating one of these, Val229, to alanine on GLP-1R-cholesterol interactions, plasma membrane behaviours, clustering, trafficking and signalling in INS-1 832/3 rat pancreatic beta cells and primary mouse islets, unveiling an improved insulin secretion profile for the V229A mutant receptor. This study (1) highlights the role of cholesterol in regulating GLP-1R responses in vivo; (2) provides a detailed map of GLP-1R - cholesterol binding sites in model membranes; (3) validates their functional relevance in beta cells; and (4) highlights their potential as locations for the rational design of novel allosteric modulators with the capacity to fine-tune GLP-1R responses.

    1. Cell Biology
    2. Immunology and Inflammation
    Alejandro Rosell, Agata Adelajda Krygowska ... Esther Castellano Sanchez
    Research Article

    Macrophages are crucial in the body’s inflammatory response, with tightly regulated functions for optimal immune system performance. Our study reveals that the RAS–p110α signalling pathway, known for its involvement in various biological processes and tumourigenesis, regulates two vital aspects of the inflammatory response in macrophages: the initial monocyte movement and later-stage lysosomal function. Disrupting this pathway, either in a mouse model or through drug intervention, hampers the inflammatory response, leading to delayed resolution and the development of more severe acute inflammatory reactions in live models. This discovery uncovers a previously unknown role of the p110α isoform in immune regulation within macrophages, offering insight into the complex mechanisms governing their function during inflammation and opening new avenues for modulating inflammatory responses.