Mouse models are widely used for elucidating mechanisms underlying type 2 diabetes. Genetic background profoundly affects metabolic phenotype; therefore selecting the appropriate model is critical. While variability in metabolic responses between mouse strains is now well-recognized, it also occurs within C57BL/6 mice, of which several substrains exist. This within-strain variability is poorly understood, and could emanate from genetic and/or environmental differences. To better define the within-strain variability, we performed the first comprehensive comparison of insulin secretion from C57BL/6 substrains 6J, 6JWehi, 6NJ, 6NHsd, 6NTac and 6NCrl. In vitro, glucose-stimulated insulin secretion correlated with Nnt mutation status, wherein responses were uniformly lower in islets from C57BL/6J versus C57BL/6N mice. In contrast, in vivo insulin responses following 18 weeks of low fat feeding showed no differences among any of the six substrains. When challenged with a high fat diet for 18 weeks, C57BL/6J substrains responded with a similar increase in insulin release. However, variability was evident among C57BL/6N substrains. Strikingly, 6NJ mice showed no increase in insulin release after high fat feeding, contributing to the ensuing hyperglycemia. The variability in insulin responses among high fat-fed C57BL/6N mice could not be explained by differences in insulin sensitivity, body weight, food intake or beta-cell area. Rather, as yet unidentified genetic and/or environmental factor(s) are likely contributors. Together, our findings emphasize that caution should be exercised in extrapolating data from in vitro studies to the in vivo situation, and inform on selecting the appropriate C57BL/6 substrain for metabolic studies.

Recent work has renewed interest in therapies targeting the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) to improve β-cell function in type 2 diabetes. Studies show that generation of angiotensin-(1–7) by ACE2 and its binding to the Mas receptor (MasR) improves glucose homeostasis, partly by enhancing glucose-stimulated insulin secretion (GSIS). Thus, islet ACE2 upregulation is viewed as a desirable therapeutic goal. Here, we show that, although endogenous islet ACE2 expression is sparse, its inhibition abrogates angiotensin-(1–7)–mediated GSIS. However, a more widely expressed islet peptidase, neprilysin, degrades angiotensin-(1–7) into several peptides. In neprilysin-deficient mouse islets, angiotensin-(1–7) and neprilysin-derived degradation products angiotensin-(1–4), angiotensin-(5–7), and angiotensin-(3–4) failed to enhance GSIS. Conversely, angiotensin-(1–2) enhanced GSIS in both neprilysin-deficient and wild-type islets. Rather than mediating this effect via activation of the G-protein–coupled receptor (GPCR) MasR, angiotensin-(1–2) was found to signal via another GPCR, namely GPCR family C group 6 member A (GPRC6A). In conclusion, in islets, intact angiotensin-(1–7) is not the primary mediator of beneficial effects ascribed to the ACE2/angiotensin-(1–7)/MasR axis. Our findings warrant caution for the concurrent use of angiotensin-(1–7) compounds and neprilysin inhibitors as therapies for diabetes.