Page 70 - GTM-4-2

Global Translational Medicine Glucosidase and metabolic profiles

resistance, computed as homeostatic model assessment observation period was greater in the control compared
(HOMA), was determined as described by Wallace et al. 30 to the MIG group. Specifically, these data indicate that
Glycated hemoglobin (hemoglobin A1C [HbA1c], gamma- the net energy intake of control rats was approximately
hydroxybutyric acid) and lipid analysis were also performed. 13% greater overall than that of the MIG-fed rats over the
Plasma triglycerides, cholesterol, and the α-lipoprotein 8-week period (Figure 2, left grouped bars). Additionally,
(LDL and β-lipoprotein high-density lipoprotein [HDL]) there was a modest improvement in feed efficiency for the
fractions were determined spectrophotometrically MIG regimen (Figure 2, right grouped bars). The effects
(Beckman AU480, United States of America) following
affinity chromatographic separation, according to the 0.3
procedure of Bentzen et al., and triglycerides were 0.25 p<0.05 (trend)
measured by the enzymatic method of Bucolo and David,
with all reagents acquired from Fischer Scientific (United 0.2 p<0.05
States of America) and prepared on-site. 31,32 Measures of Food intake (kg)/7 weeks 0.15
glycolytic enzyme activity, including glucokinase, malic 0.1
enzyme, and glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase, were 0.05
determined spectrophotometrically and expressed as 0
micro moles of product produced per minute per mg of Kg Food intake Fer
protein per liver in a sucrose-ethylenediaminetetraacetic Control Miglitol
acid-phosphate buffered liver homogenate, as described Figure 2. Effect of α-glucosidase inhibitor miglitol on net energy intake
by Freeland. Tissue protein content was determined as and feed efficiency ratio. Data are expressed as mean ± 1 standard error
33
described by Lowry et al. 34,35 Data were analyzed using of the mean (n=8 rats/group). p<0.05 through Student’s t-test; p<0.05
(trend) through Page’s L test for trend analysis.
standard statistical procedures, including the application Abbreviation: Fer: Feed efficiency ratio.
of Page’s L test for trend analysis with corrections for
covariates, where statistical significance through the
t-test was suggestive but not confirmatory. 36,37 The study A 180 p<0.05 B 940
was approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use 160 920 p<0.05
Committee, University of Science Arts and Technology 140 900
120
880
(approval number: 2016/009). Glucose (mg/dl) 100 860
80
840
3. Results 60 Insulin (μU/ml) 820
40 800
Initial and final body weights, net weight gain, and 20 780
dietary energy intake of rats over the 8-week observation 0 Glucose, mg/dl 760 Insulin, µU/ml
period are depicted in Figures 1-6. Daily energy intake is Control Miglitol Control Miglitol
depicted in Figure 1, which shows that control animals Figure 3. Effect of miglitol on fasting glucose (A) and insulin (B) at
consumed more energy per day from week 1 to week 8. The the end of the study. Data are presented as mean ± 1 standard error of
cumulative energy intake over the 8 weeks is presented in the mean (n=6 rats/group). p<0.05 (Student’s t-test). This resulted in a
Figure 2, confirming that the net energy intake during the modest 5% decrease in the mean homeostatic model assessment score
from 2.6 ± 0.1 (control) to 2.4 ± 0.1 (miglitol) (p > 0.05).
120
20
100
p<0.05 p<0.05
80 15
kcal/rat/day 60 p<0.05 (Control vs Miglitol from week one) Percent (%) 10
40
20 5
0
0 AUC glc GHB, %
Week 0Week IWeek 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6Week 7Week 8 Control Miglitol
Control Miglitol
Figure 4. Effect of miglitol on glycemic parameters at 15 weeks of age.
Figure 1. Effect of miglitol on weekly food intake in obese type 2 diabetes Data are expressed as mean ± 1 standard error of the mean (n=6 – 8 rats/
mellitus rats. Data are presented as mean ± 1 standard error of the mean group). p<0.05 as determined by Student’s t-test.
(n=6–8 rats/group). p<0.05 for control versus miglitol from week 1 to Abbreviations: AUC glc: Area under the glucose tolerance curve; GHB:
week 8. (Students t-test, individual comparisons: Control vs. miglitol). Glycated hemoglobin.

Volume 4 Issue 2 (2025) 62 doi: 10.36922/gtm.6501