ArticlePloS one2022
Preclinical evaluation of a protracted GLP-1/glucagon receptor co-agonist: Translational difficulties and pitfalls.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comprehensive Review on the Pharmacokinetics and Drug-Drug Interactions of Approved GLP-1 Receptor Agonists and a Dual GLP-1/GIP Receptor Agonist.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Review
- Targeting the incretin system in obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2024Review
- Gut hormone co-agonists for the treatment of obesity: from bench to bedside.Nature metabolism · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During recent years combining GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonism with the purpose of achieving superior weight loss and metabolic control compared to GLP-1 alone has received much attention. The superior efficacy has been shown by several in preclinical models but has been difficult to reproduce in humans. In this paper, we present the pre-clinical evaluation of NN1177, a long-acting GLP-1/glucagon receptor co-agonist previously tested in clinical trials. To further investigate the contribution from the respective receptors, two other co-agonists (NN1151, NN1359) with different GLP-1-to-glucagon receptor ratios were evaluated in parallel. In the process of characterizing NN1177, species differences and pitfalls in traditional pre-clinical evaluation methods were identified, highlighting the translational challenges in predicting the optimal receptor balance in humans. In diet-induced obese (DIO) mice, NN1177 induced a dose-dependent body weight loss, primarily due to loss of fat mass, and improvement in glucose tolerance. In DIO rats, NN1177 induced a comparable total body weight reduction, which was in contrast mainly caused by loss of lean mass, and glucose tolerance was impaired. Furthermore, despite long half-lives of the three co-agonists, glucose control during steady state was seen to depend on compound exposure at time of evaluation. When evaluated at higher compound exposure, glucose tolerance was similarly improved for all three co-agonists, independent of receptor balance. However, at lower compound exposure, glucose tolerance was gradually impaired with higher glucagon receptor preference. In addition, glucose tolerance was found to depend on study duration where the effect of glucagon on glucose control became more evident with time. To conclude, the pharmacodynamic effects at a given GLP-1-to-glucagon ratio differs between species, depends on compound exposure and study length, complicating the identification of an optimally balanced clinical candidate. The present findings could partly explain the low number of clinical successes for this dual agonism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.