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

  • 3,209
    views
  • 497
    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. Cell Biology
    Masroor Ahmad Paddar, Fulong Wang ... Vojo Deretic
    Research Article

    ATG5 is one of the core autophagy proteins with additional functions such as noncanonical membrane atg8ylation, which among a growing number of biological outputs includes control of tuberculosis in animal models. Here, we show that ATG5 associates with retromer’s core components VPS26, VPS29, and VPS35 and modulates retromer function. Knockout of ATG5 blocked trafficking of a key glucose transporter sorted by the retromer, GLUT1, to the plasma membrane. Knockouts of other genes essential for membrane atg8ylation, of which ATG5 is a component, affected GLUT1 sorting, indicating that membrane atg8ylation as a process affects retromer function and endosomal sorting. The contribution of membrane atg8ylation to retromer function in GLUT1 sorting was independent of canonical autophagy. These findings expand the scope of membrane atg8ylation to specific sorting processes in the cell dependent on the retromer and its known interactors.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Cell Biology
    Maojin Tian, Le Yang ... Peiqing Zhao
    Research Article

    TIPE (TNFAIP8) has been identified as an oncogene and participates in tumor biology. However, how its role in the metabolism of tumor cells during melanoma development remains unclear. Here, we demonstrated that TIPE promoted glycolysis by interacting with pyruvate kinase M2 (PKM2) in melanoma. We found that TIPE-induced PKM2 dimerization, thereby facilitating its translocation from the cytoplasm to the nucleus. TIPE-mediated PKM2 dimerization consequently promoted HIF-1α activation and glycolysis, which contributed to melanoma progression and increased its stemness features. Notably, TIPE specifically phosphorylated PKM2 at Ser 37 in an extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK)-dependent manner. Consistently, the expression of TIPE was positively correlated with the levels of PKM2 Ser37 phosphorylation and cancer stem cell (CSC) markers in melanoma tissues from clinical samples and tumor bearing mice. In summary, our findings indicate that the TIPE/PKM2/HIF-1α signaling pathway plays a pivotal role in promoting CSC properties by facilitating the glycolysis, which would provide a promising therapeutic target for melanoma intervention.