1,721,007 research outputs found
Effects of S 21403 on hormone secretion from isolated rat pancreas at different glucose concentrations
No full textWe investigated the in vitro effects of therapeutical concentrations of S 21403 (a succinic acid derivative also known as KAD 1229 and mitiglinide) on insulin and glucagon secretion during a metabolic stimulus (glucose rising from 5 to 8.33 mM) or at a stable 2.22 mM glucose using the isolated perfused rat pancreas model, and we compared them with the patterns of repaglinide and glibenclamide. Control perfusions were also performed. During 8.33 mM glucose, insulin release peaked to 339.12+/-22.87 microU/ml in controls. S 21403 enhanced insulin release (first peak 413.02+/-14.90 microU/ml; P<0.03 vs. controls, P=ns vs. repaglinide, P<0.005 vs. glibenclamide). Repaglinide increased glucose-induced first peak secretion to 409.33+/-20.05 microU/ml within the eighth minute (P<0.05 vs. controls, P<0.01 vs. glibenclamide). Glibenclamide did not affect the first phase of glucose-induced insulin release (peak of 338.41+/-29.79 microU/ml) but potentiated and delayed the second phase. No drug affected glucagon release. In conclusion, S 21403 induces a faster, more physiological pattern of insulin release than the other drugs we tested
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
