Probes for INS

Insulin-induced hypoglycemia in diabetes is associated with impaired glucagon secretion. Here we tested whether stimulation of GPR119, a G-protein coupled receptor expressed in pancreatic islet as well as enteroendocrine cells, and previously shown to stimulate insulin and incretin secretion might enhance glucagon secretion during hypoglycemia. In the study, GPR119 agonists were applied to isolated islets or perfused pancreata perfusions to assess insulin and glucagon secretion during hypoglycemia or hyperglycemic conditions. Insulin infusion hypoglycemic clamps were performed with or without GPR119 agonist pre-treatment to assess glucagon counter-regulation in healthy and STZ-diabetic rats, including those exposed to recurrent bouts of insulin-induced hypoglycemia that leads to suppression of hypoglycemia-induced glucagon release. Hypoglycemic clamp studies were also conducted in GPR119 KO mice to evaluate whether the pharmacologic stimulatory actions of GPR119 agonists on glucagon secretion during hypoglycemia were an on-target effect. The results revealed that GPR119 agonist-treated pancreata or cultured islets had increased glucagon secretion during low glucose perfusion. In vivo, GPR119 agonists also significantly increased glucagon secretion during hypoglycemia in healthy and STZ-diabetic rats, a response that was absent in GPR119 KO mice. In addition, impaired glucagon counter-regulatory responses were restored by a GPR119 agonist in STZ-diabetic rats that were exposed to antecedent bouts of hypoglycemia. Thus, GPR119 agonists have the ability to pharmacologically augment glucagon secretion, specifically in response to hypoglycemia in diabetic rodents. Whether this effect might serve to diminish the occurrence and severity of iatrogenic hypoglycemia during intensive insulin therapy in diabetic patients remains to be established.

 BACKGROUND:
 Expression of the colony-stimulating factor 1 (CSF1) gene is elevated in most tenosynovial giant-cell tumors. This observation has led to the discovery and clinical development of therapy targeting the CSF1 receptor (CSF1R).
 METHODS:
 Using x-ray co-crystallography to guide our drug-discovery research, we generated a potent, selective CSF1R inhibitor, PLX3397, that traps the kinase in the autoinhibited conformation. We then conducted a multicenter, phase 1 trial in two parts to analyze this compound. In the first part, we evaluated escalations in the dose of PLX3397 that was administered orally in patients with solid tumors (dose-escalation study). In the second part, we evaluated PLX3397 at the chosen phase 2 dose in an extension cohort of patients with tenosynovial giant-cell tumors (extension study). Pharmacokinetic and tumor responses in the enrolled patients were assessed, and CSF1 in situ hybridization was performed to confirm the mechanism of action of PLX3397 and that the pattern of CSF1 expression was consistent with the pathological features of tenosynovial giant-cell tumor.
 RESULTS:
 A total of 41 patients were enrolled in the dose-escalation study, and an additional 23 patients were enrolled in the extension study. The chosen phase 2 dose of PLX3397 was 1000 mg per day. In the extension study, 12 patients with tenosynovial giant-cell tumors had a partial response and 7 patients had stable disease. Responses usually occurred within the first 4 months of treatment, and the median duration of response exceeded 8 months. The most common adverse events included fatigue, change in hair color, nausea, dysgeusia, and periorbital edema; adverse events rarely led to discontinuation of treatment.
 CONCLUSIONS:
 Treatment of tenosynovial giant-cell tumors with PLX3397 resulted in a prolonged regression in tumor volume in most patients. (Funded by Plexxikon; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01004861.).

Abstract

Objectives

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) act as transmembrane molecular sensors of neurotransmitters, hormones, nutrients, and metabolites. Because unmyelinated vagalafferents richly innervate the gastrointestinal mucosa, gut-derived molecules may directly modulate the activity of vagal afferents through GPCRs. However, the types of GPCRs expressed in vagal afferents are largely unknown. Here, we determined the expression profile of all GPCRs expressed in vagal afferents of the mouse, with a special emphasis on those innervating the gastrointestinal tract.

Methods

Using a combination of high-throughput quantitative PCR, RNA sequencing, and in situhybridization, we systematically quantified GPCRs expressed in vagal unmyelinated Nav1.8-expressing afferents.

Results

GPCRs for gut hormones that were the most enriched in Nav1.8-expressing vagal unmyelinated afferents included NTSR1, NPY2R, CCK1R, and to a lesser extent, GLP1R, but not GHSR and GIPR. Interestingly, both GLP1R and NPY2R were coexpressed with CCK1R. In contrast, NTSR1 was coexpressed with GPR65, a marker preferentially enriched in intestinal mucosal afferents. Only few microbiome-derived metabolite sensors such as GPR35 and, to a lesser extent, GPR119 and CaSR were identified in the Nav1.8-expressing vagal afferents. GPCRs involved in lipid sensing and inflammation (e.g. CB1R, CYSLTR2, PTGER4), and neurotransmitters signaling (CHRM4, DRD2, CRHR2) were also highly enriched in Nav1.8-expressing neurons. Finally, we identified 21 orphan GPCRs with unknown functions in vagal afferents.

Conclusion

Overall, this study provides a comprehensive description of GPCR-dependent sensing mechanisms in vagal afferents, including novel coexpression patterns, and conceivably coaction of key receptors for gut-derived molecules involved in gut-brain communication.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

Localized- and diffuse-type tenosynovial giant cell tumours (TGCT) are regarded different clinical and radiological TGCT-types. However, genetically and histopathologically they seem indistinguishable. We aimed to correlate CSF1-expression and CSF1-rearrangement with the biological behaviour of different TGCT-types with clinical outcome (recurrence).

METHODS:

Along a continuum of extremes, therapy naïve knee TGCT patients with >3 year follow-up, mean age 43(range 6-71)years and 56% female were selected. Nine localized-(two recurrences), 16 diffuse-type(nine recurrences) and four synovitis as control were included. Rearrangement of the CSF1-locus was evaluated with split-apart Fluorescence In Situ Hybridization (FISH) probes. Regions were selected to score after identifying CSF1-expressing regions, using mRNA ISH with the help of digital correlative microscopy. CSF1-rearrangement was considered positive in samples containing >2 split signals/100 nuclei.

RESULTS:

Irrespective of TGCT-subtype, all cases showed CSF1-expression and in 76% CSF1-rearrangement was detected. Quantification of CSF1-expressing cells was not informative, due to the extensive intra tumour heterogeneity. Of the four synovitis cases, two also showed CSF1-expression, without CSF1-rearrangement. No correlation between CSF1-expression or rearrangement with clinical subtype and local recurrence was detected. Both localized- and diffuse-TGCT cases showed a scattered distribution in the tissue of CSF1-expressing cells.

CONCLUSION:

In diagnosing TGCT, CSF1 mRNA-ISH in combination with CSF1 split-apart FISH; using digital correlative microscopy, is an auxiliary diagnostic tool to identify rarely occurring neoplastic cells. This combined approach allowed us to detect CSF1-rearrangement in 76% of the TGCT-cases. Neither CSF1-expression nor presence of CSF1-rearrangement could be associated with the difference in biological behaviour of TGCT.