| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology and Endocrinology, University Childrens Hospital (B.P.H., K.H.), and Department of Endocrinology, University Medical Center (I.M.R., N.U., K.M., S.P.), University of Duisburg-Essen, D-45122 Essen, Germany
Address all correspondence and requests for reprints to: Berthold P. Hauffa, M.D., Ph.D., Department of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology and Endocrinology, University Childrens Hospital, Hufelandstrasse 55, D-45122 Essen, Germany. E-mail: berthold.hauffa{at}uni-essen.de.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Objective: We investigated the influence of GH on acylated (aGhr) and total ghrelin (tGhr) concentrations before and after an oral glucose load, and on insulin resistance in PWS children.
Design, Patients, and Interventions: In a clinical follow-up study, plasma ghrelins were measured during an oral glucose tolerance test, and parameters of insulin resistance were determined in 28 PWS children before and/or 1.18 (0.429.6) yr (median, range) after start of GH therapy (0.035 mg/kg body weight per day).
Main Outcome Measures: Fasting and postglucose concentrations of aGhr and tGhr and homeostasis model assessment 2 insulin resistance were the main outcome measures.
Setting: The study was conducted in a single center (University Childrens Hospital).
Results: High fasting [1060 ± 292 (SD) pg/ml; n = 12] and postglucose trough (801 ± 303 pg/ml; n = 10) tGhr concentrations in GH-untreated PWS children were found to be decreased in the GH-treated group (fasting 761 ± 247 pg/ml, n = 24, P = 0.006; postglucose 500 ± 176 pg/ml, n = 20; P = 0.006). In contrast, aGhr concentrations and insulin resistance were not changed by GH treatment. Both aGhr and tGhr concentrations were decreased by oral carbohydrate administration, independent of the GH treatment status.
Conclusions: Our results indicate that, in PWS children, aGhr and tGhr are differentially regulated by GH.
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
The negative correlation between body mass index (BMI) and ghrelin seen in healthy obese children and lean and obese adults (11, 12) was not observed in some PWS cohorts (3, 13). However, in other groups of PWS individuals, this relationship was shown to be maintained at higher ghrelin levels (14). Because more than 85% of PWS children fulfill the auxological and laboratory criteria of GH deficiency, GH treatment is an established therapy in PWS children (15). It has normalizing effects on disturbed body composition, and contributes to weight loss in PWS (16, 17, 18, 19). GH treatment appeared to have no significant effect on basal ghrelin concentrations in previous studies involving children and young adults with PWS (20, 21). With one exception (9), ghrelin concentrations in PWS have been reported as total ghrelin (tGhr), with no distinction being made between the GH secretagogue receptor-binding acylated form and the desacyl form.
To further elucidate the role of GH and carbohydrates in the regulation of the ghrelin isoforms in PWS, we aimed to characterize insulin resistance and the response of tGhr and acylated ghrelin (aGhr) to a standardized oral carbohydrate load. We report on the effect of GH therapy on these parameters and on BMI in PWS children and adolescents.
| Patients and Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This study was carried out as a single center study in the tertiary care setting of the University Childrens Hospital in Essen. Twenty-eight consecutively admitted children and adolescents with molecularly proven PWS (13 female), age 2.516.1 yr [BMI SD score (SDS) range 2.04 to 4.31] were included in the study. They were undergoing an oral glucose tolerance test (oGTT) as routine evaluation before and during GH treatment (0.035 mg/kg body weight daily sc; maximum dose 2.7 mg). In addition to glucose and insulin, total and aGhr concentrations were measured in the samples obtained throughout the tests. Thirty-six tests were carried out. Test results were grouped in two different ways for analysis. First, in eight children who had an oGTT before and after the start of GH therapy, data were compared intraindividually. In this subset, the age difference between examinations pre- and post-GH therapy (n = 8) was 1.14 (0.291.8) yr (median, range). For further analysis, test data for all children were combined. They were grouped according to their GH treatment status (n = 12 before, n = 24 after the start of GH therapy). In this analysis, children who had only one oGTT (before or after the onset of GH treatment) were combined with those tested before and after treatment and the pretreatment and posttreatment levels were compared. For the 24 GH-treated children, 1.18 (0.429.56) yr (median, range) had elapsed between the start of GH treatment and the oGTT. BMI was transformed into BMI SDS using standards derived from a population of healthy German children (22).
Ethical considerations
The study protocol was approved by the local ethics committee. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents of the patients and from those children old enough to follow the explanations.
oGTT
Carbohydrate load was carried out after an overnight fast by giving 1.75 g/kg body weight (maximum amount 75 g) of a commercially available glucose syrup (Dextro O.G.-T.; Roche, Grenzach-Wyhlen, Germany) within 15 min by mouth. Blood samples for glucose and insulin determination were obtained before and 30, 60, 90, and 120 min after carbohydrate ingestion. At the same time points, blood for measurement of total and aGhr was collected into EDTA-coated tubes and immediately transferred on ice water to the laboratory, where plasma was separated in a refrigerated centrifuge within the next 30 min. The plasma was then stored at 80 C for up to a maximum of 2 months before assay.
All oGTTs were performed between 08001000 h. All patients received their last GH injection on the day before the test between 19002200 h.
Assays
Blood glucose was determined by a standard glucose oxidase method. Plasma insulin was measured using a commercially available RIA (Insulin RIA; Biochem ImmunoSystems, Freiburg, Germany). Intraassay (interassay) variability was characterized by a coefficient of variation of 4.57.4% (4.58.0%) within a concentration range of 9.294.2 µU/ml (8.895.2 µU/ml). Sensitivity was 1.0 µU/ml.
tGhr was measured by a commercially available RIA (Phoenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Belmont, CA). The antibody has 100% cross-reactivity to human desacyl and acylated human ghrelin. Intraassay (interassay) variability was 4.3% (16.4%), sensitivity was 80 pg/ml.
aGhr was measured by a commercially available RIA (Linco Research, St. Charles, MO). The antibody has 100% cross-reactivity to human aGhr and <0.1% cross-reactivity to desacyl human ghrelin. Intraassay (interassay)variability was 13.9% (20.4%). Percent homeostasis model assessment 2 ß-cell function (HOMA2B) and the degree of homeostasis model assessment 2 insulin resistance (HOMA2IR) were determined from fasting glucose and insulin concentrations by homeostasis model assessment 2 (HOMA2) modeling (23). HOMA2 parameters were calculated using the HOMA Calculator (The University of Oxford 2004; www.dtu.ox.ac.uk). Insulin resistance was assumed at HOMA2IR values greater than 4 (24).
Statistical evaluation
If not indicated otherwise, data are reported as mean ± SD. Group and intraindividual comparisons were made by the Wilcoxon rank sum test and the Wilcoxon signed rank test, respectively. Significance was taken as P < 0.05. Associations between parameters were assessed separately by Spearman rank correlation. Model-selection multiple stepwise regression analysis was used to evaluate the relative importance of GH treatment status, carbohydrate administration, BMI SDS, and HOMA2 parameters for the variation of the ghrelin plasma concentration in PWS. Parameters were allowed to enter into the model with F statistics significant at the 0.9 level, and allowed to stay in the model at the 0.5 significance level. Calculations were performed using the SAS software (release 8.2, edition 2002; SAS Institute, Cary, NC).
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
First we consider the eight PWS children for whom data were collected both before and after the start of GH treatment. BMI SDS (P = 0.0078), basal tGhr (P = 0.0078), and postcarbohydrate trough tGhr (P = 0.0313) concentrations in plasma decreased significantly after the start of GH treatment (Fig. 1
). In contrast, no GH-related decrease was observed for the aGhr concentrations, either before or after carbohydrate administration.
|
In response to a standardized oral carbohydrate load, both plasma tGhr and aGhr concentrations decreased significantly in PWS children irrespective of their GH treatment status. In the GH-untreated PWS children, basal fasting tGhr concentrations decreased from 1060 ± 292 pg/ml (n = 12) to postcarbohydrate trough concentrations of 801 ± 303 pg/ml (n = 10; P = 0.044) (Fig. 2
, A and B; left columns). aGhr decreased from 187 ± 99 pg/ml (n = 12) to trough concentrations of 106 ± 36 pg/ml (n = 10; P = 0.035) (Fig. 2
, C and D; left columns). Mean trough tGhr (aGhr) concentrations in GH-untreated children amounted to 66.1% (70.3%) of their respective basal fasting levels. In the GH-treated children, fasting tGhr concentrations decreased from 761 ± 247 pg/ml (n = 24) to postcarbohydrate trough concentrations of 500 ± 176 pg/ml (n = 20; P = 0.0007) (Fig. 2
, A and B; right columns). aGhr decreased from 184 ± 95 pg/ml (n = 24) to trough concentrations of 118 ± 66 pg/ml (n = 20; P = 0.033) (Fig. 2
, C and D; right columns). The relative mean decrease of tGhr (69.8%) and aGhr (65.8%) did not differ from the mean decrease recorded for the GH-untreated group.
|
Stepwise multiple regression analysis performed for model-building purposes revealed that, in a model including GH treatment status, carbohydrate administration, BMI SDS, chronological age, HOMA2B, and HOMA2IR, 48% of the variability of plasma tGhr concentration, but only 24% of aGhr variability could be explained by the model (Table 1
). For tGhr variability, GH treatment status (21.3%) and carbohydrate administration (17.8%) played a major role; BMI SDS contributed only 6.9%. The influence of HOMA2 parameters and chronological age was low. With regard to aGhr variability, major explanatory factors were carbohydrate administration (14.4%) and HOMA2IR (5.3%). Chronological age (2.4%) and HOMA2B (1.9%) played only a minor role. There appeared to be no influence of GH treatment status and BMI SDS on aGhr.
|
|
Fasting blood glucose concentration was normal in the PWS patients at all time points in the study. Two patients had disturbed glucose tolerance, indicated by an increased blood glucose 2 h after oral carbohydrate load. In one girl, a 2-h blood glucose of 9.9 mmol/liter (normal: <7.77) was found before the start of GH therapy. This girl had the highest BMI SDS (4.31) of the PWS cohort. The other girl with a 2-h blood glucose of 8.3 mmol/liter shortly after the start of GH therapy had normal glucose tolerance on subsequent examinations during GH treatment. Two other PWS girls with normal glucose tolerance under GH therapy had HOMA2IR values of 5.6 and 7.3 that were considered indicative of insulin resistance. Basal fasting insulin was elevated in one patient before GH treatment (28.2 µU/ml). In this patient, insulin returned to normal with GH treatment. Two other patients showed elevated fasting insulin concentrations (45.4 and 59.3 µU/ml) while under GH treatment. Fasting and maximum insulin concentration after carbohydrate load, and HOMA2IR did not differ between the GH-treated and the GH-untreated group.
In GH untreated PWS children, there were no correlations between BMI SDS and HOMA2IR (and HOMA2B). After the start of GH treatment in the PWS group, a moderate correlation between BMI SDS and HOMA2IR developed (r = 0.47, P = 0.021). A moderate correlation of insulin resistance with the 2-h postcarbohydrate load aGhr concentration (r = 0.49, P = 0.034) was seen only in the GH-treated PWS group. Otherwise, no correlations for ghrelin data with HOMA2 parameters were found.
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Two previous studies (21, 34) have not been able to demonstrate an effect of GH on circulating tGhr in PWS. Hoybye (34) did not find an effect of GH on the fasting levels of tGhr in PWS adults. In a study of PWS children in an age range similar to our cohort, Haqq et al. (21) reported tGhr data that were compatible with a trend toward lower concentrations after GH, but the result did not reach significance. However, our children had a lower BMI SDS with a normal BMI in seven of 13 GH-untreated and 19 of 24 GH-treated children, which is in contrast to the finding of this feature in only two of 12 children in the study of Haqq et al. This suggests that, in PWS children with a higher BMI, GH-induced ghrelin suppression may be harder to achieve. Also, we observed that, with GH treatment, a strong and significant negative correlation of BMI SDS with ghrelin suppression by carbohydrates was abolished. This is consistent with the hypothesis that GH treatment alters the way in which BMI and carbohydrate-suppressed tGhr levels interact.
The mechanisms by which GH treatment decreases tGhr are unclear. Very low dose short-term (7 d) GH treatment of non-GH-deficient men with visceral obesity increased IGF-I and GH, but did not alter plasma ghrelin (35). In GH-deficient adults, short-term (8 d) administration of GH in a conventional replacement dose led to a significant decrease in ghrelin levels and an increase in circulating IGF-I. This is consistent with an inhibitory feedback of GH, IGF-I, or both on ghrelin in GH deficiency (36). After long-term GH treatment (612 months) in GH-deficient adults and children, ghrelin was found to be increased (36), unchanged (13, 37, 38), or decreased (39). In the latter study, the reduced ghrelin concentration was concurrent with a mean 27% decrease in fat mass. The lipolytic, glucose-promoting, and insulin-increasing activities of GH were assumed to contribute to the ghrelin decrease under the condition of GH deficiency.
One of the factors necessary for ghrelin reduction after a mixed meal is insulin. This is demonstrated by the fact that, in type 1 diabetes, a postprandial ghrelin decrease occurs only in the presence of insulin (40). PWS patients are unique in that they exhibit a diminished and delayed insulin secretion in response to carbohydrates and a lesser degree of insulin resistance than would be expected for the degree of their obesity (31). Looking at the time course of insulin resistance and the response of insulin and glucose to oral glucose administration during long-term GH treatment in PWS, lAllemand et al. (41) described a transient increase in fasting insulin and insulin resistance over the first 3 yr of treatment that returned to normal after 36 months of GH therapy. Although overt insulin resistance develops in only a minority of PWS patients, it appears that, as long as fat mass is not reduced, GH is capable of inducing fasting insulin and insulin resistance. The majority of our GH-treated group was in that early phase of GH treatment: only five of 24 patients had been treated for more than 3 yr. However, fasting (postcarbohydrate) insulin concentrations and HOMA2IR did not differ between the GH-treated and GH-untreated group. Therefore, differences in the acute insulin response to carbohydrates between groups did not explain the observed tGhr suppression in the GH-treated state. Indeed, the explanation that, in PWS, GH-induced insulin resistance may play a role in modifying ghrelin concentration is compatible with some of our findings. Initially, in our untreated patients, an association of BMI with HOMA2 insulin resistance was lacking, and was only observed after the start of GH therapy. Furthermore, only in the GH-treated group did we find a moderate correlation of insulin resistance with the aGhr concentration 2 h after carbohydrate loading. This is consistent with the findings of Paik et al. (9), showing that the amount of aGhr suppression after carbohydrate loading increased with whole body insulin sensitivity in PWS. Also, when we tried to pinpoint factors influencing ghrelin concentrations by model-selection multiple stepwise regression analysis, HOMA2 insulin resistance was kept in the model, explaining some of the total and more of the aGhr variability.
An important observation in this study was that both total and aGhr levels decreased in response to carbohydrate loading, irrespective of whether the patients were treated with GH or not. In contrast, only tGhr levels decreased after GH treatment. To explain this, we propose that, in PWS, a chronically increased production of aGhr is accompanied by accelerated rate of deacylation. This would result in elevated tGhr concentrations in the face of normal levels of the acylated form. If this process was partly blocked by GH then tGhr levels would decrease. Among a number of ghrelin deacylation enzymes that have been identified [e.g. lysophospholipase I (42), esterases (43)], several are potential GH targets. In adult-onset GH deficiency patients, stable on long-term GH treatment, Gauna et al. (44) have indeed shown that administration of a small amount of aGhr increased aGhr levels. But, tGhr concentrations increased even more, and this resulted in an increased ratio of total to aGhr. Yet, omission of the evening GH dose, and its administration with aGhr the next morning did not blunt the rise of tGhr levels otherwise seen after treatment with the acylated form alone. However, this may not militate against the effect of GH we report with our patients, who were studied separately in a GH-naïve state and under chronic GH treatment.
Desacyl ghrelin is involved in many biological activities independent of the GH secretagogue receptor Ia. These include glucose homeostasis, lipolysis, cell proliferation and apoptosis (44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52). Ghrelin action on the hypothalamic level appears to be limited to aGhr acting via the GH secretagogue Ia receptor (53). Therefore, attempts to explain obesity in PWS by changes in desacyl ghrelin must address direct effects of this form on peripheral tissues. Until now, most studies have focused on short-term changes in ghrelin. These studies failed to establish a link between ghrelin levels and hunger or satiety in PWS. Acute somatostatin infusion lowered ghrelin concentrations in PWS adults, but did not affect appetite (32). Perhaps it is rather the long-term fluctuations in blood ghrelin levels corresponding to the chronic feeding state of the organism that affect weight in PWS.
The hypothesis of acylated or desacyl ghrelin playing a major role for obesity in PWS could be tested by a new class of pharmacological agents, the spiegelmers. These are L-enantiomer oligonucleotides, that can be constructed to specifically bind and inactivate aGhr. In diet-induced obese mice, administration of the spiegelmer NOX-B11 for 1 wk decreased body weight and body fat (54), an effect not seen in obese ghrelin-deficient animals. This supports a role of the acylated form of ghrelin for obesity, at least in this species. Further studies of the role of ghrelins in PWS-related obesity will also have to address the possibility that ghrelins and obestatin, another peptide encoded by the ghrelin gene, but with opposing effects on weight regulation (55), are differentially regulated by glucose or GH.
A limitation of our study is the high interassay variability of the aGhr measurements of 20.4%, exceeding most of the published data that vary less than 13% (9, 44). This could weaken the interpretation of our aGhr data.
In conclusion, our results showed that aGhr and tGhr levels are differentially regulated by GH in PWS children and adolescents. Chronic GH treatment decreased basal and postcarbohydrate plasma tGhr concentrations below those of GH-untreated PWS children, whereas aGhr concentrations remained unaffected. In contrast, both aGhr and tGhr concentrations were decreased by oral carbohydrate administration, independent of the GH treatment status. In intraindividual comparisons, the GH-induced tGhr decrease was associated with a decrease of BMI SDS. Changes in insulin resistance appeared to play only a minor role for tGhr decrease.
| Acknowledgments |
|---|
| Footnotes |
|---|
Disclosure Summary: B.P.H. serves on the Advisory Board of the German Pfizer Growth Database and has received lecture fees from Pfizer and Novo Nordisk. K.H., I.M.R., and N.U. have nothing to declare. K.M. has received consulting and lecture fees from Pfizer and Novo Nordisk. S.P. has received lecture fees from Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly.
First Published Online December 27, 2006
Abbreviations: aGhr, Acylated ghrelin; BMI, body mass index; HOMA2, homeostasis model assessment 2; HOMA2B, homeostasis model assessment 2 ß-cell function; HOMA2IR, homeostasis model assessment 2 insulin resistance; oGTT, oral glucose tolerance test; PWS, Prader-Willi syndrome; SDS, SD score; tGhr, total ghrelin.
Received May 10, 2006.
Accepted December 20, 2006.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| Endocrinology | Endocrine Reviews | J. Clin. End. & Metab. |
| Molecular Endocrinology | Recent Prog. Horm. Res. | All Endocrine Journals |