Premium
Co‐administration of glutathione and nitric oxide enhances insulin sensitivity in Wistar rats
Author(s) -
Guarino Maria P,
Macedo M Paula
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
british journal of pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.432
H-Index - 211
eISSN - 1476-5381
pISSN - 0007-1188
DOI - 10.1038/sj.bjp.0706691
Subject(s) - glutathione , endocrinology , medicine , nitric oxide , insulin , chemistry , glucose clamp technique , insulin resistance , pancreatic hormone , biochemistry , enzyme
The liver modulates insulin sensitivity through a prandial‐dependent mechanism that requires activation of the hepatic parasympathetic nerves, hepatic nitric oxide (NO) and hepatic glutathione (GSH). We tested the hypothesis that co‐administration of GSH and NO to the liver enhances insulin sensitivity in a GSH and NO dose‐dependent manner. 24 h fasted Wistar rats were used. Hepatic GSH was supplemented by administration of glutathione monoethylester (GSH‐E; 0.1/0.25/0.5/1/2 mmol kg −1 ) and 3‐morpholinosidnonimine (SIN‐1; 5/10 mg kg −1 ) was used as a NO donor. The drugs were administered either systemically (i.v.) or intraportally (i.p.v.). Insulin sensitivity was assessed using a transient euglycemic clamp. Neither GSH‐E nor SIN‐1 increased insulin sensitivity when administered alone, both i.v. and i.p.v. Moreover, changes in insulin sensitivity were not observed when GSH‐E was administered i.v. followed by either i.v. or i.p.v. SIN‐1 at any of the doses tested. However, i.p.v. administration of GSH‐E followed by i.p.v. SIN‐1 10 mg kg −1 significantly increased insulin sensitivity in a GSH‐E dose‐dependent manner: 26.1±9.4% after 0.1 mmol kg −1 GSH‐E; 44.6±7.9% after 0.25 mmol kg −1 GSH‐E; 59.4±15.1% after 0.5 mmol kg −1 GSH‐E; 138.9±12.7% after 1 mmol kg −1 GSH‐E and 117.3±29.2% after a dose of 2 mmol kg −1 ( n =23, P <0.005). Our results confirm that insulin sensitivity is enhanced in a dose‐dependent manner by co‐administration of NO and GSH donors to the liver.British Journal of Pharmacology (2006) 147 , 959–965. doi: 10.1038/sj.bjp.0706691