Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18509500›Full record

ReviewExperimental diabetes research2008

C-Peptide effects on renal physiology and diabetes.

L Rebsomen, A Khammar, D Raccah, M Tsimaratos

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Experimental diabetes research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pathophysiology of the diabetic kidney.Comprehensive Physiology · 2011
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The renal vascular response to diabetes.Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension · 2010
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

L RebsomenUPRES EA 21-93, Laboratoire de Diabétologie, Faculté de Médecine de Marseille, Université de la Méditerranée, 13385 Marseille Cedex 05, France.
A Khammar
D Raccah
M Tsimaratos
Institut de Neurobiologie de la Méditerranée · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The C-peptide of proinsulin is important for the biosynthesis of insulin and has for a long time been considered to be biologically inert. Animal studies have shown that some of the renal effects of the C-peptide may in part be explained by its ability to stimulate the Na,K-ATPase activity. Precisely, the C-peptide reduces diabetes-induced glomerular hyperfiltration both in animals and humans, therefore, resulting in regression of fibrosis. The tubular function is also concerned as diabetic animals supplemented with C-peptide exhibit better renal function resulting in reduced urinary sodium waste and protein excretion together with the reduction of the diabetes-induced glomerular hyperfiltration. The tubular effectors of C-peptide were considered to be tubule transporters, but recent studies have shown that biochemical pathways involving cellular kinases and inflammatory pathways may also be important. The matter theory concerning the C-peptide effects is a metabolic one involving the effects of the C-peptide on lipidic metabolic status. This review concentrates on the most convincing data which indicate that the C-peptide is a biologically active hormone for renal physiology.

Indexed as

AnimalsC-PeptideDiabetes Mellitus, ExperimentalDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetic NephropathiesGlomerular Filtration RateHumansInflammationKidney GlomerulusKidney TubulesLipid MetabolismSignal TransductionSodium-Potassium-Exchanging ATPaseC-PeptideSodium-Potassium-Exchanging ATPase

Identifiers

PMID18509500
PMCPMC2396455
OpenAlexW2164013572

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.