Expression of a mutant form of the ferritin light chain gene induces neurodegeneration and iron overload in transgenic mice.

Increased iron levels and iron-mediated oxidative stress play an important role in the pathogenesis of many neurodegenerative diseases. The finding that mutations in the ferritin light polypeptide (FTL) gene cause a neurodegenerative disease known as neuroferritinopathy or hereditary ferritinopathy (HF) provided a direct connection between abnormal brain iron storage and neurodegeneration. HF is characterized by a severe movement disorder and by the presence of nuclear and cytoplasmic ferritin inclusion bodies in glia and neurons throughout the CNS and in tissues of multiple organ systems. Here we report that the expression in transgenic mice of a human FTL cDNA carrying a thymidine and cytidine insertion at position 498 (FTL498-499InsTC) leads to the formation of nuclear and cytoplasmic ferritin inclusion bodies. As in HF, ferritin inclusions are seen in glia and neurons throughout the CNS as well as in cells of other organ systems. Our studies show histological, immunohistochemical, and biochemical similarities between ferritin inclusion bodies found in transgenic mice and in individuals with HF. Expression of the transgene in mice leads to a significant decrease in motor performance and a shorter life span, formation of ferritin inclusion bodies, misregulation of iron metabolism, accumulation of ubiquitinated proteins, and incorporation of elements of the proteasome into inclusions. This new transgenic mouse represents a relevant model of HF in which to study the pathways that lead to neurodegeneration in HF, to evaluate the role of iron mismanagement in neurodegenerative disorders, and to evaluate potential therapies for HF and related neurodegenerative diseases.

Exenatide versus insulin glargine in patients with suboptimally controlled type 2 diabetes: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Physicians may use either insulin or exenatide injections for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have poor glycemic control despite taking oral blood glucose-lowering drugs. OBJECTIVE: To compare effects of exenatide and insulin glargine on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus that is suboptimally controlled with metformin and a sulfonylurea. DESIGN: 26-week multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: 82 outpatient study centers in 13 countries. PATIENTS: 551 patients with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (defined as hemoglobin A1c level ranging from 7.0% to 10.0%) despite combination metformin and sulfonylurea therapy. INTERVENTION: Exenatide, 10 microg twice daily, or insulin glargine, 1 daily dose titrated to maintain fasting blood glucose levels of less than 5.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL). MEASUREMENTS: Hemoglobin A1c level, fasting plasma glucose level, body weight, 7-point self-monitored blood glucose, standardized test-meal challenge, safety, and tolerability. RESULTS: Baseline mean hemoglobin A1c level was 8.2% for patients receiving exenatide and 8.3% for those receiving insulin glargine. At week 26, both exenatide and insulin glargine reduced hemoglobin A1c levels by 1.11% (difference, 0.017 percentage point [95% CI, -0.123 to 0.157 percentage point]). Exenatide reduced postprandial glucose excursions more than insulin glargine, while insulin glargine reduced fasting glucose concentrations more than exenatide. Body weight decreased 2.3 kg with exenatide and increased 1.8 kg with insulin glargine (difference, -4.1 kg [CI, -4.6 to -3.5 kg]). Rates of symptomatic hypoglycemia were similar, but nocturnal hypoglycemia occurred less frequently with exenatide (0.9 event/patient-year versus 2.4 events/patient-year; difference, -1.6 events/patient-year [CI, -2.3 to -0.9 event/patient year]). Gastrointestinal symptoms were more common in the exenatide group than in the insulin glargine group, including nausea (57.1% vs. 8.6%), vomiting (17.4% vs. 3.7%) and diarrhea (8.5% vs. 3.0%). LIMITATIONS: The trial was open-label and did not assess clinical complications related to diabetes. Of the 551 participants, 19.4% of those receiving exenatide and 9.7% of those receiving insulin glargine withdrew from the study. Only 21.6% of the insulin glargine group and 8.6% of the exenatide group achieved the target level for fasting plasma glucose of less than 5.6 mmol/L (<100 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS: Exenatide and insulin glargine achieved similar improvements in overall glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes that was suboptimally controlled with oral combination therapy. Exenatide was associated with weight reduction and had a higher incidence of gastrointestinal adverse effects than insulin glargine.