Sweet taste receptor is expressed not only in taste buds but also in nongustatory organs such as enteroendocrine cells and pancreatic beta-cells, and may play more extensive physiological roles in energy metabolism. Here we examined the expression and function of the sweet taste receptor in 3T3-L1 cells. In undifferentiated preadipocytes, both T1R2 and T1R3 were expressed very weakly, whereas the expression of T1R3 but not T1R2 was markedly up-regulated upon induction of differentiation (by 83.0 and 3.8-fold, respectively at Day 6). The α subunits of Gs (Gαs) and G14 (Gα14) but not gustducin were expressed throughout the differentiation process. The addition of sucralose or saccharin during the first 48 hours of differentiation considerably reduced the expression of peroxisome proliferator activated receptor γ (PPARγ and CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein α (C/EBPα at Day 2, the expression of aP2 at Day 4 and triglyceride accumulation at Day 6. These anti-adipogenic effects were attenuated by short hairpin RNA-mediated gene-silencing of T1R3. In addition, overexpression of the dominant-negative mutant of Gαs but not YM-254890, an inhibitor of Gα14, impeded the effects of sweeteners, suggesting a possible coupling of Gs with the putative sweet taste-sensing receptor. In agreement, sucralose and saccharin increased the cyclic AMP concentration in differentiating 3T3-L1 cells and also in HEK293 cells heterologously expressing T1R3. Furthermore, the anti-adipogenic effects of sweeteners were mimicked by Gs activation with cholera toxin but not by adenylate cyclase activation with forskolin, whereas small interfering RNA-mediated knockdown of Gαs had the opposite effects. 3T3-L1 cells express a functional sweet taste-sensing receptor presumably as a T1R3 homomer, which mediates the anti-adipogenic signal by a Gs-dependent but cAMP-independent mechanism.

Although insulin acutely stimulates glucose uptake by promotion of GLUT4 translocation from intracellular compartments to the plasma membrane in adipocytes and muscles, long term insulin stimulation causes GLUT4 depletion that is particularly prominent in the insulin-responsive GLUT4 storage compartment. This effect is caused mainly by accelerated lysosomal degradation of GLUT4, although the mechanism is not fully defined. Here we show that insulin acutely induced dissociation of retromer components from the low density microsomal membranes of 3T3-L1 adipocytes that was accompanied by disruption of the interaction of Vps35 with sortilin. This insulin effect was dependent on the activity of protein kinase CK2 but not phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase or extracellular signal-regulated kinase 1/2. Knockdown of Vps26 decreased GLUT4 to a level comparable with that with insulin stimulation for 4 h. Vps35 with a mutation in the CK2 phosphorylation motif (Vps35-S7A) was resistant to insulin-induced dissociation from the low density microsomal membrane, and its overexpression attenuated GLUT4 down-regulation with insulin. Furthermore, insulin-generated hydrogen peroxide was an upstream mediator of the insulin action on retromer and GLUT4. These results suggested that insulin-generated oxidative stress switches the GLUT4 sorting direction to lysosomes through inhibition of the retromer function in a CK2-dependent manner.

Nafamostat mesilate is the first anticoagulant of choice for leukocytapheresis (LCAP) with a Cellsorba E column for treating ulcerative colitis (UC). However, because of complications, mainly due to allergy to nafamostat mesilate, heparin may be used as a substitute. To evaluate the safety and tolerability of nafamostat mesilate and heparin as anticoagulants in LCAP for UC, we conducted post hoc analysis of data from a large‐scale, prospective, observational study of LCAP, which was conducted at 116 medical facilities in Japan between May 2010 and December 2012. Of 832 patients included in this analysis, nafamostat mesilate and heparin were used in 676 (81.3%) and 113 (13.6%), respectively. There were no significant differences in the incidence of adverse reactions (8.6% vs. 7.1%) and intrafilter pressure increases (12.7% vs. 16.8%) between the nafamostat mesilate and heparin groups. Adverse reactions of hemorrhage or blood pressure decreases associated with heparin use were not observed. There were no significant differences in rates of clinical remission (69.1% vs. 68.1%) and mucosal healing (62.9% vs. 63.6%) between the nafamostat mesilate and heparin groups. Thus, the safety and tolerability were comparable in the nafamostat mesilate and heparin groups, indicating that both nafamostat mesilate and heparin can be well tolerated as anticoagulants in LCAP for UC.

We previously reported that 3T3-L1 cells express a functional sweet taste receptor possibly as a T1R3 homomer that is coupled to Gs and negatively regulates adipogenesis by a Gαs-mediated but cAMP-independent mechanism. Here, we show that stimulation of this receptor with sucralose or saccharin induced disassembly of the microtubules in 3T3-L1 preadipocytes, which was attenuated by overexpression of the dominant-negative mutant of Gαs (Gαs-G226A). In contrast, overexpression of the constitutively active mutant of Gαs (Gαs-Q227L) as well as treatment with cholera toxin or isoproterenol but not with forskolin caused disassembly of the microtubules. Sweetener-induced microtubule disassembly was accompanied by activation of RhoA and Rho-associated kinase (ROCK). This was attenuated with by knockdown of GEF-H1, a microtubule-localized guanine nucleotide exchange factor for Rho GTPase. Furthermore, overexpression of the dominant-negative mutant of RhoA (RhoA-T19N) blocked sweetener-induced dephosphorylation of Akt and repression of PPARγ and C/EBPα in the early phase of adipogenic differentiation. These results suggest that the T1R3 homomeric sweet taste receptor negatively regulates adipogenesis through Gαs-mediated microtubule disassembly and consequent activation of the Rho/ROCK pathway.

Differentiation-inducing factor-1 (DIF-1) is a chlorinated alkylphenone (a polyketide) found in the cellular slime mold Dictyostelium discoideum. DIF-1 and its derivative, DIF-1(3M) promote glucose consumption in vitro in mammalian cells and in vivo in diabetic rats; they are expected to be the leading antiobesity and antidiabetes compounds. In this study, we investigated the mechanisms underlying the actions of DIF-1 and DIF-1(3M). In isolated mouse liver mitochondria, these compounds at 2–20 μM promoted oxygen consumption in a dose-dependent manner, suggesting that they act as mitochondrial uncouplers, whereas CP-DIF-1 (another derivative of DIF-1) at 10–20 μM had no effect. In confluent mouse 3T3-L1 fibroblasts, DIF-1 and DIF-1(3M) but not CP-DIF-1 induced phosphorylation (and therefore activation) of AMP kinase (AMPK) and promoted glucose consumption and metabolism. The DIF-induced glucose consumption was reduced by compound C (an AMPK inhibitor) or AMPK knock down. These data suggest that DIF-1 and DIF-1(3M) promote glucose uptake, at least in part, via an AMPK-dependent pathway in 3T3-L1 cells, whereas cellular metabolome analysis revealed that DIF-1 and DIF-1(3M) may act differently at least in part.

In the article “Migrants, partner selection and integration: crossing borders?” Erna Hooghiemstra analysis why so many Dutch Turks and Moroccans who have spent their youth or their young adulthood in the Netherlands, have chosen to marry a partner who still lives in the country of origin. The objective is to explore the extend to which the high rate of transnational marriages can be explained by (a lack of) integration on the one hand or by factors that are usually put forward as influencing partnerselection - such as the opportunity to meet, the structure and character of the social network and individual processes of rational choice - from the other hand. The statistical comparison between those Turkish and Moroccan who married a so called marriagemigrant and those who married a partner from the Netherlands shows that the two groups differ significantly from each other. Also: the motives of men and women to marry across the border seem to be very distinct. Some differences between the two types of partnerchoices can be explained by integration theories others by general partnerchoice theories. The general conclusion is that understanding of the partnerchoice of migrants goes beyond the boundary of knowlegde of integration processes as well as general processes of partnerselection. The important implication is that integration alone can’t explain the partnerchoice of migrants and that a general perspective on partnerchoice without considering the specific background of migrants is too limited to understand the partnerchoice of migrants.