Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41726984›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026

Towards the development of an insulin degradation test.

David Ritz, Elizabeth-Lauren Stevenson, Daniel Schultz

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David RitzDepartment of Microbiology & Immunology - Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth,Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Elizabeth-Lauren StevensonDepartment of Molecular and Systems Biology - Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03755, USA.
Daniel SchultzDepartment of Microbiology & Immunology - Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth,Hanover, NH 03755, USA.

Funding

Understanding the role of RNA-binding protein mutations in cancerP20GM113132 · NIGMS · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI MADDEN, DEAN R · 2016 to 2025
$25.9M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM113132
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

People with diabetes rely on exogenous insulin to reduce blood glucose levels, compensating for insulin resistance or impaired pancreatic β-cell function. Despite being essential for diabetes management, insulin formulations exhibit inconsistent performance due to their relatively fragile stability. This instability carries significant cost implications: some individuals spend over $1,000 USD per month on insulin, and these high prices influence one in six Americans with diabetes to ration their insulin supplies. Environmental stressors can induce conformational changes that cause insulin to misfold and aggregate into fibrils, which are inactive structures that contribute to long-term diabetic complications. Although insulin's instability is well-documented, no test currently exists outside of laboratory settings to determine whether an insulin formulation has degraded. Here, we compare biochemical techniques for assessing bioactivity and structural integrity in three commercial insulin analogs exposed to physiologically relevant stress conditions, showing that fibril formation precedes measurable loss of bioactivity in insulin and that fibrillation depends on both the stressor type and the insulin formulation tested. We then demonstrate proof-of-concept testing for antibody-based degradation detection using commercial monoclonal antibody candidates. Together, these findings underscore the critical need for accessible insulin quality testing and demonstrate the feasibility of antibody-based detection of insulin fibrillation.

Indexed as

degradationfibrillationinsulinsensing

Identifiers

PMID41726984
PMCPMC12918789

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.