Insulin Release: Synchronizing beta cells in the pancreas
The amount of glucose in the blood is controlled by the hormone insulin, which is released by the pancreas when glucose levels get too high. The hormone is released from beta cells that are organized into spheroid structures within the pancreas known as islets of Langerhans. Like muscle cells in the heart, beta cells are electrically coupled together by gap junctions, and this coupling enables the cells within the islet to coordinate or synchronize their behavior and release insulin in a pulsatile manner.
Gap junctions are thought to be critical for controlling the dynamics of the islets and, hence, insulin secretion. Indeed, mice lacking gap junctions are unable to release insulin in pulses (Head et al., 2012). Gap junction (or electrical) coupling between beta cells has also been shown to weaken with age as insulin secretion declines and individuals become more susceptible to type 2 diabetes (Westacott et al., 2017a).
Recent studies have shown that beta cells can be separated into subpopulations based on their genetic makeup, the proteins they make, and how they behave (Benninger and Hodson, 2018). Some of these subgroups have a greater influence over islet dynamics than others (Stožer et al., 2013; Johnston et al., 2016; Salem et al., 2019; Westacott et al., 2017b; Nasteska et al., 2021). When these cells are disrupted – either by optogenetics or gene overexpression – islet function and insulin secretion decline, reminiscent of what occurs during aging and type 2 diabetes.
These subpopulations of beta cells are not physically connected and instead rely on their intrinsic properties to influence islet dynamics (Johnston et al., 2016; Westacott et al., 2017b; Nasteska et al., 2021). However, the cells in these subpopulations are too few in number to influence electrical coupling by gap junctions (Peercy and Sherman, 2022). Additionally, gap junctions alone cannot explain the activity patterns of the subpopulations identified, or their influence over islet function. So how do these two mechanisms work together to control blood glucose levels? Now, in eLife, Richard Benninger and co-workers – including Jennifer Briggs as first author – report new findings that shine some light on the relationship between beta cell subpopulations and gap junctions (Briggs et al., 2023).
The researchers (who are based at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and the University of Birmingham) found that the enzyme glucokinase – which senses changes in blood glucose levels – displayed elevated levels of activity in a subpopulation of beta cells. This resulted in heightened metabolism due to glucokinase breaking down more molecules of glucose to generate the high levels of ATP (usable energy) versus ADP (used energy) required for insulin release, reflecting previous findings (Johnston et al., 2016; Westacott et al., 2017b).
Notably, beta cells were more likely to synchronize their response to glucose if their metabolic activity was similar; moreover, changing these intrinsic properties led to a loss of the beta cell subpopulation. Reducing gap junction coupling also did not stop the beta cells within the islet from synchronizing their activity. It did, however, make them much weaker at transmitting electrical signals across the islet.
It has long been thought that gap junctions are the major driver of synchronized beta cell activity, and that their disruption during diabetes leads to impaired insulin secretion. However, the findings of Briggs et al. suggest that gap junctions are just one piece of the jigsaw, and that cells with similar intrinsic properties – such as metabolic actvity – also drive islet dynamics (Figure 1).
So which mechanism fails first during diabetes: gap junctions or intrinsic cellular properties? Small decreases in the number of gap junctions and their associated electrical signalling, which occurs during diabetes, would make it much harder for beta cells within a subpopulation to synchronize. On the other hand, small changes in intrinsic cellular properties might render gap junction synchronization much less effective. Complicating matters further, loss of gap junction coupling likely influences the intrinsic properties of beta cells and vice versa. Therefore, the disrupted islet dynamics and impaired insulin release observed in patients with diabetes is probably due in part to both mechanisms failing simultaneously.
The study by Briggs et al. shows that no single mechanism drives synchronized beta cell activity: rather, subpopulations and gap junctions come together to shape islet behaviour. Further computational modelling could help tease out – or even predict – how the critical relationship between beta cell subpopulations and gap junctions influences insulin release. Further experimental work is also warranted to understand how the interplay between beta cell subpopulations and gap junctions is altered during diabetes.
References
-
Beta cell hubs dictate pancreatic islet responses to glucoseCell Metabolism 24:389–401.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2016.06.020
-
Do oscillations in pancreatic islets require pacemaker cells?Journal of Biosciences 47:14.https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-021-00251-6
-
Functional connectivity in islets of Langerhans from mouse pancreas tissue slicesPLOS Computational Biology 9:e1002923.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002923
Article and author information
Author details
Publication history
Copyright
© 2024, Peercy and Hodson
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.
Metrics
-
- 1,350
- views
-
- 148
- downloads
-
- 2
- citations
Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.
Download links
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)
Further reading
-
- Computational and Systems Biology
- Genetics and Genomics
Apart from ancestry, personal or environmental covariates may contribute to differences in polygenic score (PGS) performance. We analyzed the effects of covariate stratification and interaction on body mass index (BMI) PGS (PGSBMI) across four cohorts of European (N = 491,111) and African (N = 21,612) ancestry. Stratifying on binary covariates and quintiles for continuous covariates, 18/62 covariates had significant and replicable R2 differences among strata. Covariates with the largest differences included age, sex, blood lipids, physical activity, and alcohol consumption, with R2 being nearly double between best- and worst-performing quintiles for certain covariates. Twenty-eight covariates had significant PGSBMI–covariate interaction effects, modifying PGSBMI effects by nearly 20% per standard deviation change. We observed overlap between covariates that had significant R2 differences among strata and interaction effects – across all covariates, their main effects on BMI were correlated with their maximum R2 differences and interaction effects (0.56 and 0.58, respectively), suggesting high-PGSBMI individuals have highest R2 and increase in PGS effect. Using quantile regression, we show the effect of PGSBMI increases as BMI itself increases, and that these differences in effects are directly related to differences in R2 when stratifying by different covariates. Given significant and replicable evidence for context-specific PGSBMI performance and effects, we investigated ways to increase model performance taking into account nonlinear effects. Machine learning models (neural networks) increased relative model R2 (mean 23%) across datasets. Finally, creating PGSBMI directly from GxAge genome-wide association studies effects increased relative R2 by 7.8%. These results demonstrate that certain covariates, especially those most associated with BMI, significantly affect both PGSBMI performance and effects across diverse cohorts and ancestries, and we provide avenues to improve model performance that consider these effects.
-
- Computational and Systems Biology
- Neuroscience
Audiovisual information reaches the brain via both sustained and transient input channels, representing signals’ intensity over time or changes thereof, respectively. To date, it is unclear to what extent transient and sustained input channels contribute to the combined percept obtained through multisensory integration. Based on the results of two novel psychophysical experiments, here we demonstrate the importance of the transient (instead of the sustained) channel for the integration of audiovisual signals. To account for the present results, we developed a biologically inspired, general-purpose model for multisensory integration, the multisensory correlation detectors, which combines correlated input from unimodal transient channels. Besides accounting for the results of our psychophysical experiments, this model could quantitatively replicate several recent findings in multisensory research, as tested against a large collection of published datasets. In particular, the model could simultaneously account for the perceived timing of audiovisual events, multisensory facilitation in detection tasks, causality judgments, and optimal integration. This study demonstrates that several phenomena in multisensory research that were previously considered unrelated, all stem from the integration of correlated input from unimodal transient channels.