Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Insulin Resistance and Type 2 Diabetes
Roy Taylor
F
or well over half a century, the link between in-
sulin resistance and type 2 diabetes has been
recognized. Insulin resistance is important. Not
only is it the most powerful predictor of future
development of type 2 diabetes, it is also a therapeutic
target once hypergly cemia is present. In this issue of
Diabetes, Morino et al. (1) report a series of studies that
provide evidence of a genetic mechanism linking expres-
sion of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) to peroxisome proliferator–
activated receptor (PPAR)-d expression and mitochondrial
function. This is likely to contribute to the muscle insulin
resistance that predisposes to type 2 diabetes.
Observation of abnormal mitochondrial function in vitro
in type 2 diabetes (2) was soon followed by in vivo dem-
onstration of this abnormality in insulin-resistant, first-
degree relatives of people with type 2 diabetes (3). Further
reports of a modest defect in muscle mitochondrial function
in type 2 diabetes were published shortly thereafter (4,5).
These studies raised the question of whether type 2 diabetes
could be a primary disorder of the mitochondria. However,
the study of first-degree relatives tended to be misinter-
preted as having shown a major defect i n mitochondrial
function in type 2 diabetes, although it had studied non-
diabetic groups from the opposi te ends of the insulin
resistance–sensitivi ty spectrum. Indeed, other studies showed
no defect in mitochondrial function in type 2 diabetes
(6,7), which led to further confusion. Mitochondrial func-
tion was then shown to be acutely modifiable by changing
fatty acid availability (8) and that it was affected by am-
bient blood glucose concentration (9). When ambient
blood glucose levels were near normal in diabetes, no de-
fect in mitochondrial function was apparent.
But if mitochondrial function in well-controlled type 2 di-
abetes is not abnormal, is a defect in insulin-resistant, first-
degree relatives clinically relevant? The answer is provided in
Fig. 1, which shows population distributions of insulin sen-
sitivity for normoglycemia, impaired glucose tolerance, and
type 2 diabetes. The wide range of insulin sensitivity in the
normoglycemic population fully encompasses the range ob-
served in type 2 diabetes. Even though mean insulin sensi-
tivity in diabetes is lower than that of matched control
subjects, values are drawn from the same distribution and,
with matching for body weight and physical activity, differ-
ences will be relatively small. Differences in insulin sensi-
tivity will be particularly evident when making comparisons
between groups selected from the extreme ends of the
population distribution (Fig. 1). When parameters directly
linked to muscle insulin resistance are compared between
groups selected in this way, any linked difference will be
maximized, making this strategy entirely appropriate to in-
vestigate the pathophysiology of muscle insulin resistance.
Muscle insulin resistance as determined by the euglycemic-
hyperinsulinemic clamp is clearly a risk factor for develop-
ment of type 2 diabetes (10). However, the pathophysiology
of hy perglycemia in established diabetes relates to hepatic
not muscle insulin resistance. This distinction has been
elegantly demonstrated in studies of moderate calorie
restriction in type 2 diabetes, which resulted in a fall in
liver fat, normalization of hepatic insulin sensitivity, and
fasting plasma glucose, but no change in muscle insulin
resistance (11). More recent work employing severe calorie
restriction confirmed previous findings and also demon-
strated a longer-term return of normal i nsulin secretion as
intrapancreatic fat content fell (12). The fact that fasting
and postprandial normoglycemia can be restored in type 2
diabetes without change in muscle insulin resistance should
not be surprising. Mice totally lacking in skeletal muscle
insulin receptors do not develop diabetes (13). People with
inactive muscle glycogen synthase are not necessarily hy-
perglycemic (14), and many normoglycemic indivi duals
maintain normal blood glucose with a degree of muscle in-
sulin resistance identical to that among people who develop
type 2 diabetes (Fig. 1). The relevance of muscle insulin re-
sistance for development of type 2 diabetes is more subtle.
Ov
er many years and only in the presence of chronic calorie
excess, hyperinsulinemia steadily brings about hepatic fat
accumulation and hepatic insulin resistance. Onset of hy-
perglycemia is ultimately determined by failure of nutrient-
stimulated insulin secretion (15). This new understanding is
described by the twin cycle hypothesis (16). So what actually
determines this critical primary insulin resist ance in muscle?
Morino et al. (1) report analyses of mRNA in muscle
biopsies to compare expression of genes involved in mi-
tochondrial fatty acid oxidation. Their experiments com-
pare data for subjects at opposite extremes of the insulin
resistance spectrum. Findings were confirmed in indepen-
dent groups selected in the same way and two genes were
found to be consistently lower in expression. Using knock
down of expression by appropriate inhibitory RNA, Western
blotting showed that LPL was the important gene product.
In both human rhabdomyosarcoma cells and L6 myocytes,
such knock down of LPL induced a decrease in mitochon-
drial density. The function of LPL is to release fatty acids
from triglyceride for direct cellular uptake. The biological
relevance of the link between decreased mitochondrial
numbers and RNA interference (RNAi) inhibition of LPL
was confi rmed by observing that the effect was only seen
if fat was present in the extracellular media. To test
the hypothesis that fatty acid flux into cells regulates
mitochondrial biogenesis by a PPAR-dependent process,
knock down of PPAR-d was also shown to decrease mi-
tochondrial density. Furthermore, limitation of fatty acid
uptake by directly inhibiting the transmembrane fatty
From the Magnetic Reso nance Cent re, Campus for Age ing and Vitali ty,
Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, U.K.
Corresponding author: Roy Taylor, roy.taylor@ncl.ac.uk.
DOI: 10.2337/db12-0073
Ó 2012 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as
long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit,
and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by
-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.
See accompanying original article, p. 877.
778 DIABETES, VOL. 61, APRIL 2012 diabetes.diabetesjournals.org
COMMENTARY
transporter CD36 was shown to achieve the same effect.
Overall, these studies suggest that insulin resistance is
related to decreased mitochondrial content in muscle due,
at least in part, to reductions in LPL e xpression and con-
sequent decreased PPAR-d activation.
This important article establishes a biological mecha-
nism whereby insulin resistance in muscle is causally linked
to genetic influences that are measurable in the general
population. It focuses on insulin resistance by comparing
extremes of the distribution of this characteristic in the
normal population. But does insulin resistance cause mito-
chondrial dysfunction, or vice versa? The former appears
more likely on the basis of current evidence. Exercise
can reduce insulin resistance and ameliorate mitochondrial
dysfunction (17), whereas established mitochondrial dys-
function does not necessarily produce insulin resistance in
animal models or in humans (18,19). Understanding the
nature of common insulin resistance in muscle and its re-
lationship to type 2 diabetes is long overdue. Future work
should determine whether specific therapeutic manipula-
tion can offset the effect of identifiable genetic influences
and interrupt the long run-in to type 2 diabetes.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
No potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article
were reported.
The author is grateful to Leif Groop of Lund University
for permi ssion to use combined data from the Botnia
Study and the Malmö Prospective Study in Fig. 1 and to
Jasmina Kravic of Lund University for replotting the data.
REFERENCES
1. Morino K, Petersen KF, Sono S, et al. Regulation of mitochondrial bio-
genesis by lipoprotein lipase in muscle of insulin-resistant offspring of
parents with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2012;61:877–887
2. Kelley DE, He J, Menshikova EV, Ritov VB. Dysfunction of mitochondria in
human skeletal muscle in type 2 diabetes. Diabetes 2002;51:2944–2950
3. Petersen KF, Dufour S, Befroy D, Garcia R, Shulman GI. Impaired mito-
chondrial activity in the insulin-resistant offspring of patients with type 2
diabetes. N Engl J Med 2004;350:664–671
4. Szendroedi J, Schmid AI, Chmelik M, et al. Muscle mitochondrial ATP
synthesis and glucose transport/phosphorylation in type 2 diabetes. PLoS
Med 2007;4:e154
5. Phielix E, Schrauwen-Hinderling VB, Mensink M, et al. Lower intrinsic
ADP-stimulated mitochondrial respiration underlies in vivo mitochondrial
dysfunction in muscle of male type 2 diabetic patients. Diabetes 2008;57:
2943–2949
6. De Feyter HM, van den Broek NM, Praet SF, Nicolay K, van Loon LJ, Prompe rs
JJ. Early or advanced stage type 2 diabetes is not accompanied by in vivo
skeletal muscl e mitochon drial dysfu nctio n. Eur J Endocr inol 2008;158:643–653
7. Lim EL, Hollingsworth KG, Smith FE, Thelwall PE, Taylor R. Effects of
raising muscle glycogen synthesis rate on skeletal muscle ATP turnover rate
in type 2 diabetes. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2011;301:E1155–E1162
8. Lim EL, Hollingsworth KG, Smith FE, Thelwall PE, Taylor R. Inhibition of
lipolysis in Type 2 diabetes normalizes glucose disposal without change in
muscle glycogen synthesis rates. Clin Sci (Lond) 2011;121:169–177
9. Schrauwen-Hinderling VB, Kooi ME, Hesselink MK, et al. Impaired in vivo
mitochondrial function but similar intramyocellular lipid content in pa-
tients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and BMI-matched control subjects.
Diabetologia 2007;50:113–120
10. Lillioja S, Mott DM, Spraul M, et al. Insulin resistance and insulin secretory
dysfunction as precursors of non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus.
Prospective studies of Pima Indians. N Engl J Med 1993;329:1988–1992
11. Petersen KF, Dufour S, Befroy D, Lehrke M, Hendler RE, Shulman GI.
Reversal of nonalcoholic hepatic steatosis, hepatic insulin resistance, and
hyperglycemia by moderate weight reduction in patients with type 2 di-
abetes. Diabetes 2005;54:603–608
12. Lim EL, Hollingsworth KG, Aribisala BS, Chen MJ, Mathers JC, Taylor R. Re-
versal of type 2 diabetes: normalisation of beta cell function in association with
decreased pancreas and liver triacylglycerol. Diabetologia 2011;54:2506–2514
13. Brüning JC, Michael MD, Winnay JN, et al. A muscle-specific insulin re-
ceptor knockout exhibits features of the metabolic syndrome of NIDDM
without altering glucose tolerance. Mol Cell 1998;2:559–569
14. Savage DB, Zhai L, Ravikumar B, et al. A prevalent variant in PPP1R3A
impairs glycogen synthesis and reduces muscle glycogen content in hu-
mans and mice. PLoS Med 2008;5:e27
15. Ferrannini E, Nannipieri M, Williams K, Gonzales C, Haffner SM, Stern MP.
Mode of onset of type 2 diabetes from normal or impaired glucose toler-
ance. Diabetes 2004;53:160–165
16. Taylor R. Pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes: tracing the reverse route from
cure to cause. Diabetologia 2008;51:1781–1789
17. Ritov VB, Menshikova EV, Azuma K, et al. Deficiency of electron transport
chain in human skeletal muscle mitochondria in type 2 diabetes mellitus
and obesity. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab 2010;298:E49–E58
18. Zechner C, Lai L, Zechner JF, et al. Total skeletal muscle PGC-1 deficiency
uncouples mitochondrial derangements from fiber type determination and
insulin sensitivity. Cell Metab 2010;12:633–642
19. Maassen JA, ‘t Hart LM, van Essen E, et al. Mitochondrial diabetes: molecular
mechanisms and clinical presentation. Diabetes 2004;53(Suppl. 1):S103–S109
20. Groop L, Forsblom C, Lehtovirta M, et al. Metabolic consequences of
a family history of NIDDM (the Botnia study): evidence for sex-specific
parental effects. Diabetes 1996;45:1585–1593
21. Tripathy D, Eriksson KF, Orho-Melander M, Fredriksson J, Ahlqvist G,
Groop L. Parallel manifestation of insulin resistance and beta cell de-
compensation is compatible with a common defect in Type 2 diabetes.
Diabetologia 2004;47:782–793
FIG. 1. Distribution curves of insulin sensitivity as measured by the euglycemic-hyperinsulinemic clamp showing that people with type 2
diabetes s it within the range of the nondiabetic distribution, but toward the lower range. Identification of factors underlying muscle insulin
resistance itself can be investigated by comparing groups drawn from the extremes of the total population distribution. Such factors may
not be clearly discernible when type 2 diabetic individuals are compared with normogly cemic control subjects matched for weight and
physical activity. The data are from previously published population studies of normal glucose tolerance (n = 256), impaired glucose
tolerance (n = 119), and type 2 diabetes (n = 194) (20,21).
R. TAYLOR
diabetes.diabetesjournals.org DIABETES, VOL. 61, APRIL 2012 779