Inhibition of Pancreatic Glucagon Responses to Arginine by Human Insulin (recombinant DNA) and Purified Porcine Insulin in Normal and Diabetic Subjects

Abstract

This study investigates and compares human insulin (recombinant DNA) and purified porcine insulin (PPI) in healthy volunteers and in type II diabetic patients, in terms of whether both these insulins were capable of influencing in a different manner pancreatic glucagon, C-peptide, and free fatty acids (FFA) concentrations. The findings reveal that the beta-cell of human pancreas apparently recognizes human insulin more readily than PPI, as assessed by the inhibition of C-peptide, and a similar conclusion follows for the alpha-cell; this conclusion is underscored by the inhibited glucagon values. The delayed increments of glucagon under human insulin following arginine stimulation may be the result of a more rapid insulin absorption from subcutaneous tissue and a greater biologic action of this insulin in comparison with the PPI. Finally, human insulin has additional properties as demonstrated by its stronger antilipolytic effects.

Hypoglycaemia induced by exogenous insulin –‘human’ and animal insulin compared

“…Four of the 15 studies reported on hypoglycaemia awareness[44–47]. All were laboratory‐based investigations where hypoglycaemia was induced experimentally.…”

Human Insulin

“…Following intravenous administration of equal doses ofbiosynthetic human and monocoinponent porcine insulin the hypoglycaemic response to each insulin has been similar, with the rate-of reduction of blood glucose concentrations and nadir values not statistically significantly different (Ebihara et al 1982;Federlin et al 1981;Galloway et al 1981 b;Klier et al 1981;Pickup et al 1982;Raptis et al 1982;Rosak et al 1982b;Schluter et al 1982b;Viberti et al 1981). Following intravenous administration of equal doses ofbiosynthetic human and monocoinponent porcine insulin the hypoglycaemic response to each insulin has been similar, with the rate-of reduction of blood glucose concentrations and nadir values not statistically significantly different (Ebihara et al 1982;Federlin et al 1981;Galloway et al 1981 b;Klier et al 1981;Pickup et al 1982;Raptis et al 1982;Rosak et al 1982b;Schluter et al 1982b;Viberti et al 1981).…”

“…However, this tendency was reversed after a dose of 9.6U (Keen et a1. A difference in the pattern of hypoglycaemic response in healthy subjects and type II diabetics was noted by Raptis et al (1982), who observed that in both groups biosynthetic insulin caused a greater early response than porcine insulin, despite higher plasma insulin concentrations after porcine insulin. 1981), and this dose of human biosynthetic insulin caused a significantly smaller hypoglycaemic response than porcine insulin in the study of Keen et al (1980).…”

“…However, administration of porcine insulin has consistently been associated with a larger increment in plasma adrenaline (epinephrine) and glucagon concentrations than has biosynthetic human insulin (Petersen et al 1982;Raptis et al 1982;Rosak et a1. However, administration of porcine insulin has consistently been associated with a larger increment in plasma adrenaline (epinephrine) and glucagon concentrations than has biosynthetic human insulin (Petersen et al 1982;Raptis et al 1982;Rosak et a1.…”

Role of human insulin in the treatment of diabetes

“…Several groups have found that the counter-regulatory hor¬ mone secretion following insulin induced hypogly¬ cemia is lower when the hypoglycemia is induced with human insulin than with pork insulin. Also there may be a difference in the glucagon response to arginine infusion when human insulin has been given instead of pork insulin (30,32,33,38). These findings are so surprising that one would like further con¬ firmation before they are accepted.…”