Epigenetic marking systems confer stability of gene expression during mammalian development. Genome-wide epigenetic reprogramming occurs at stages when developmental potency of cells changes. At fertilization, the paternal genome exchanges protamines for histones, undergoes DNA demethylation, and acquires histone modifications, whereas the maternal genome appears epigenetically more static. During preimplantation development, there is passive DNA demethylation and further reorganization of histone modifications. In blastocysts, embryonic and extraembryonic lineages first show different epigenetic marks. This epigenetic reprogramming is likely to be needed for totipotency, correct initiation of embryonic gene expression, and early lineage development in the embryo. Comparative work demonstrates reprogramming in all mammalian species analysed, but the extent and timing varies, consistent with notable differences between species during preimplantation development. Parental imprinting marks originate in sperm and oocytes and are generally protected from this genome-wide reprogramming. Early primordial germ cells possess imprinting marks similar to those of somatic cells. However, rapid DNA demethylation after midgestation erases these parental imprints, in preparation for sex-specific de novo methylation during gametogenesis. Aberrant reprogramming of somatic epigenetic marks after somatic cell nuclear transfer leads to epigenetic defects in cloned embryos and stem cells. Links between epigenetic marking systems appear to be developmentally regulated contributing to plasticity. A number of activities that confer epigenetic marks are firmly established, while for those that remove marks, particularly methylation, some interesting candidates have emerged recently which need thorough testing in vivo. A mechanistic understanding of reprogramming will be crucial for medical applications of stem cell technology.

OBJECTIVEOne-third of men with type 2 diabetes have hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (HH). We conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the effect of testosterone replacement on insulin resistance in men with type 2 diabetes and HH.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSA total of 94 men with type 2 diabetes were recruited into the study; 50 men were eugonadal, while 44 men had HH. Insulin sensitivity was calculated from the glucose infusion rate (GIR) during hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. Lean body mass and fat mass were measured by DEXA and MRI. Subcutaneous fat samples were taken to assess insulin signaling genes. Men with HH were randomized to receive intramuscular testosterone (250 mg) or placebo (1 mL saline) every 2 weeks for 24 weeks.RESULTSMen with HH had higher subcutaneous and visceral fat mass than eugonadal men. GIR was 36% lower in men with HH. GIR increased by 32% after 24 weeks of testosterone therapy but did not change after placebo (P = 0.03 for comparison). There was a decrease in subcutaneous fat mass (−3.3 kg) and increase in lean mass (3.4 kg) after testosterone treatment (P < 0.01) compared with placebo. Visceral and hepatic fat did not change. The expression of insulin signaling genes (IR-β, IRS-1, AKT-2, and GLUT4) in adipose tissue was significantly lower in men with HH and was upregulated after testosterone treatment. Testosterone treatment also caused a significant fall in circulating concentrations of free fatty acids, C-reactive protein, interleukin-1β, tumor necrosis factor-α, and leptin (P < 0.05 for all).CONCLUSIONSTestosterone treatment in men with type 2 diabetes and HH increases insulin sensitivity, increases lean mass, and decreases subcutaneous fat.

These effects are consistent with a potent and rapid antiinflammatory effect of sitagliptin and may potentially contribute to the inhibition of atherosclerosis. The suppression of CD26 expression suggests that sitagliptin may inhibit the synthesis of DPP-IV in addition to inhibiting its action.

OBJECTIVETo investigate whether addition of three different doses of liraglutide to insulin in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) results in significant reduction in glycemia, body weight, and insulin dose.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSWe randomized 72 patients (placebo = 18, liraglutide = 54) with T1D to receive placebo and 0.6, 1.2, and 1.8 mg liraglutide daily for 12 weeks.RESULTSIn the 1.2-mg and 1.8-mg groups, the mean weekly reduction in average blood glucose was −0.55 ± 0.11 mmol/L (10 ± 2 mg/dL) and −0.55 ± 0.05 mmol/L (10 ± 1 mg/dL), respectively (P < 0.0001), while it remained unchanged in the 0.6-mg and placebo groups. In the 1.2-mg group, HbA1c fell significantly (−0.78 ± 15%, −8.5 ± 1.6 mmol/mol, P < 0.01), while it did not in the 1.8-mg group (−0.42 ± 0.15%, −4.6 ± 1.6 mmol/mol, P = 0.39) and 0.6-mg group (−0.26 ± 0.17%, −2.8 ± 1.9 mmol/mol, P = 0.81) vs. the placebo group (−0.3 ± 0.15%, −3.3 ± 1.6 mmol/mol). Glycemic variability was reduced by 5 ± 1% (P < 0.01) in the 1.2-mg group only. Total daily insulin dose fell significantly only in the 1.2-mg and 1.8-mg groups (P < 0.05). There was a 5 ± 1 kg weight loss in the two higher-dose groups (P < 0.05) and by 2.7 ± 0.6 kg (P < 0.01) in the 0.6-mg group vs. none in the placebo group. In the 1.2- and 1.8-mg groups, postprandial plasma glucagon concentration fell by 72 ± 12% and 47 ± 12%, respectively (P < 0.05). Liraglutide led to higher gastrointestinal adverse events (P < 0.05) and ≤1% increases (not significant) in percent time spent in hypoglycemia (<55 mg/dL, 3.05 mmol/L).CONCLUSIONSAddition of 1.2 mg and 1.8 mg liraglutide to insulin over a 12-week period in overweight and obese patients with T1D results in modest reductions of weekly mean glucose levels with significant weight loss, small insulin dose reductions, and frequent gastrointestinal side effects. These findings do not justify the use of liraglutide in all patients with T1D.