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
- Version of Record published: January 25, 2024 (version 1)
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
-
- 798
- views
-
- 108
- downloads
-
- 0
- 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
Transcriptomic profiling became a standard approach to quantify a cell state, which led to accumulation of huge amount of public gene expression datasets. However, both reuse of these datasets or analysis of newly generated ones requires significant technical expertise. Here we present Phantasus - a user-friendly web-application for interactive gene expression analysis which provides a streamlined access to more than 96000 public gene expression datasets, as well as allows analysis of user-uploaded datasets. Phantasus integrates an intuitive and highly interactive JavaScript-based heatmap interface with an ability to run sophisticated R-based analysis methods. Overall Phantasus allows users to go all the way from loading, normalizing and filtering data to doing differential gene expression and downstream analysis. Phantasus can be accessed on-line at https://alserglab.wustl.edu/phantasus or can be installed locally from Bioconductor (https://bioconductor.org/packages/phantasus). Phantasus source code is available at https://github.com/ctlab/phantasus under MIT license.
-
- Computational and Systems Biology
- Evolutionary Biology
A comprehensive census of McrBC systems, among the most common forms of prokaryotic Type IV restriction systems, followed by phylogenetic analysis, reveals their enormous abundance in diverse prokaryotes and a plethora of genomic associations. We focus on a previously uncharacterized branch, which we denote coiled-coil nuclease tandems (CoCoNuTs) for their salient features: the presence of extensive coiled-coil structures and tandem nucleases. The CoCoNuTs alone show extraordinary variety, with three distinct types and multiple subtypes. All CoCoNuTs contain domains predicted to interact with translation system components, such as OB-folds resembling the SmpB protein that binds bacterial transfer-messenger RNA (tmRNA), YTH-like domains that might recognize methylated tmRNA, tRNA, or rRNA, and RNA-binding Hsp70 chaperone homologs, along with RNases, such as HEPN domains, all suggesting that the CoCoNuTs target RNA. Many CoCoNuTs might additionally target DNA, via McrC nuclease homologs. Additional restriction systems, such as Type I RM, BREX, and Druantia Type III, are frequently encoded in the same predicted superoperons. In many of these superoperons, CoCoNuTs are likely regulated by cyclic nucleotides, possibly, RNA fragments with cyclic termini, that bind associated CARF (CRISPR-Associated Rossmann Fold) domains. We hypothesize that the CoCoNuTs, together with the ancillary restriction factors, employ an echeloned defense strategy analogous to that of Type III CRISPR-Cas systems, in which an immune response eliminating virus DNA and/or RNA is launched first, but then, if it fails, an abortive infection response leading to PCD/dormancy via host RNA cleavage takes over.