Usage Information
Citation Information: JCI Insight. 2021;6(6):e143650. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci.insight.143650.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Beige and brown adipose tissue (BAT) are associated with improved metabolic homeostasis. We recently reported that the β3-adrenergic receptor agonist mirabegron induced beige adipose tissue in obese insulin-resistant subjects, and this was accompanied by improved glucose metabolism. Here we evaluated pioglitazone treatment with a combination pioglitazone and mirabegron treatment and compared these with previously published data evaluating mirabegron treatment alone. Both drugs were used at FDA-approved dosages.METHODS We measured BAT by PET CT scans, measured beige adipose tissue by immunohistochemistry, and comprehensively characterized glucose and lipid homeostasis and insulin sensitivity by euglycemic clamp and oral glucose tolerance tests. Subcutaneous white adipose tissue, muscle fiber type composition and capillary density, lipotoxicity, and systemic inflammation were evaluated by immunohistochemistry, gene expression profiling, mass spectroscopy, and ELISAs.RESULTS Treatment with pioglitazone or the combination of pioglitazone and mirabegron increased beige adipose tissue protein marker expression and improved insulin sensitivity and glucose homeostasis, but neither treatment induced BAT in these obese subjects. When the magnitude of the responses to the treatments was evaluated, mirabegron was found to be the most effective at inducing beige adipose tissue. Although monotherapy with either mirabegron or pioglitazone induced adipose beiging, combination treatment resulted in less beiging than either alone. The 3 treatments also had different effects on muscle fiber type switching and capillary density.CONCLUSION The addition of pioglitazone to mirabegron treatment does not enhance beiging or increase BAT in obese insulin-resistant research participants.TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02919176.FUNDING NIH DK112282 and P20GM103527 and Clinical and Translational Science Awards grant UL1TR001998.
Authors
Brian S. Finlin, Hasiyet Memetimin, Beibei Zhu, Amy L. Confides, Hemendra J. Vekaria, Riham H. El Khouli, Zachary R. Johnson, Philip M. Westgate, Jianzhong Chen, Andrew J. Morris, Patrick G. Sullivan, Esther E. Dupont-Versteegden, Philip A. Kern
Usage data is cumulative from January 2024 through January 2025.
| Usage | JCI | PMC |
|---|---|---|
| Text version | 255 | 150 |
| 41 | 54 | |
| Figure | 96 | 3 |
| Table | 56 | 0 |
| Supplemental data | 18 | 1 |
| Citation downloads | 35 | 0 |
| Totals | 501 | 208 |
| Total Views | 709 | |
Usage information is collected from two different sources: this site (JCI) and Pubmed Central (PMC). JCI information (compiled daily) shows human readership based on methods we employ to screen out robotic usage. PMC information (aggregated monthly) is also similarly screened of robotic usage.
Various methods are used to distinguish robotic usage. For example, Google automatically scans articles to add to its search index and identifies itself as robotic; other services might not clearly identify themselves as robotic, or they are new or unknown as robotic. Because this activity can be misinterpreted as human readership, data may be re-processed periodically to reflect an improved understanding of robotic activity. Because of these factors, readers should consider usage information illustrative but subject to change.
