Effect of subcutaneous insulin on intestinal adaptation in a rat model of short bowel syndrome
Authors: Raanan Shamir
Arnold G Coran
Jacob Bejar
Mark Hirsh
Naim Shehadeh
Igor Sukhotnik
Jorge Mogilner
Journal: Pediatric Surgery International (2005)
Discipline: CLINICAL MEDICINE
Keywords: Insulin; intestinal adaptation; cell proliferation; apoptosis; short bowel syndrome
Affiliations: Department of Pediatric Surgery B, Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion, Bnai Zion Medical Center, 47 Golomb Street, P.O.B. 4940, Haifa 31048, Israel. 

Abstract:  Insulin has been shown to influence intestinal structure and absorptive function. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effects of parenteral insulin on structural intestinal adaptation, cell proliferation, and apoptosis in a rat model of short bowel syndrome (SBS). Male Sprague-Dawley rats were divided into three experimental groups: sham rats underwent bowel transection and reanastomosis, SBS rats underwent a 75% small bowel resection, and SBS-INS rats underwent a 75% small bowel resection and were treated with insulin given subcutaneously at a dose of 1 U/kg, twice daily, from day 3 through day 14. Parameters of intestinal adaptation, enterocyte proliferation, and enterocyte apoptosis were determined on day 15 following operation. SBS rats demonstrated a significant increase in jejunal and ileal bowel and mucosal weight, villus height and crypt depth, and cell proliferation index compared with the sham group. SBS-INS animals demonstrated higher jejunal and ileal bowel and mucosal weights, jejunal and ileal mucosal DNA and protein, and jejunal and ileal crypt depth compared with SBS animals. SBS-INS rats also had a greater cell proliferation index in both jejunum and ileum and a trend toward a decrease in enterocyte apoptotic index in jejunum and ileum compared with the SBS untreated group. In conclusion, parenteral insulin stimulates structural intestinal adaptation in a rat model of SBS. Increased cell proliferation is the main mechanism responsible for increased cell mass. 

Retracted: No

PubPeer comments:
 This paper ( received 2 December 2019 ) overlaps considerably with a manuscript that was submitted to  Ocular Immunology Inflammation on 23 Oct 2019; rejected for publication on the advice of a reviewer; and subsequently shared on social media by one of the authors. With that author s permission, I am uploading relevant sections of the manuscript and the present paper, so that people can judge the level of the parallelism. First, the cover letter: ![file] , 
 ![file] ![file] , 
 ![] ![file] , 
 ![file] ![file] , 
 ![] ![] , 
 ![] ![] , 
 ![file] ![file] , 
 The manuscript submitted to Ocular Immunology Inflammation was rejected on 23 December 2019, two months after its submission. However, the long wait in peer-review limbo was not completely wasted, because (as noted in #1) the present manuscript had already been submitted to  Aging Clinical and Experimental Research on 2 December. , 
 #8 A suitable resolution, assuming the journal agrees with the contentions, would be to retract this article and permit the original author to publish his original (or suitably revised) paper. , 
 #9 After its rejection by *Ocular Immunology Inflammation*, the original manuscript was accepted and published in a third journal. But if the editors accept that this version was pirated, it should be retracted to uphold the original author s priority, , 
 #1 Dear Sir Madam Thanks very much for your message. I have noticed the issue you raised up yestertoday. First, I would like to point out that this is a meta-analysis, and the results were based on formally published eligible articles. Everyone has the right to retract these articles from databases and perform analyses accordingly. The two groups of authors both intended to perform a meta-analysis to estimate associations of IL-8 polymorphisms and IL-8 levels with AMD. With all eligible articles identical, if the authors conducted analyses correctly, I assume that we will draw exact identical results and conclusions. However, although identical articles were enrolled for analyses, I noticed that the exact pooled values of probability values and ORs were far from the same, the analyses and conclusions are also somehow different. Please see Table 2 and Table 4 of our manuscript for more information, and I would like to show the review manager datasets for your references if neccessary. Second, I also wanted to point out there were many conventional language usages and article organization layouts in meta-analyses, they could be used by anyone. This manuscript was checked and confirmed by me, and I think all the expressions were clear and fluent. You know, as a Chinese author, I am always confused and frustrated by the similarity check software, I just did not understand why someone using a certain expression would preclude us from using the same expression if this expression is clear and concise. Of course, you can re-write. But this will probably rein the fluency, epecially for non-native speakers. So why should we change the expression, if it is the expression that can be used in every association studies. Moreover, if we are looking into the same scientific problem, and want to perform a secondary analysis based on published literatures, like for relationships between IL-8 and AMD, this just already set down the tone of your manuscript. Moreover, there are also many english editing services and softwares, nowadays, we even have AIs for language translation, just type what you want to say, can the software can help you do the translation. Nevertheless, I perfectly understand that overlaps with other articles is not good, but I have to say that I am also very frustrated by this stautus that we need to re-phrase over and over again to avoid overlaps, even for some very very common expressions. From the submitting hisotry of the other group of authors, I can cleary undestand their frustratation. This kind of situation also occured to me, when I performed a meta-analyse regarding glaucoma. You know, all the eligible articles were same, and we were just one step slower. Please understand that we are also frustrated too and we are not aiming to take advantage of any other authors. The manuscript was finish in the end of Nov 2019, and we started submission in eariler Dec. Below is my e-mail address, zhaoguandidne@163.com, and we think we can communicate via e-mail with this group of authors to find the best solution for this issue. If possible, please also provide us the e-mail addresses of this group of authors, and we can communicatate or exchange some datasets if neccessary. We will also contact the editor in chief of Aging Clin Exp Res shortly, and inform the EIC of the current status. I also noticed that some of experts leave the comments that they suggested that under this circurstance, we should retract the article in this status. Actually, this is also the first time that I met this kind of situation, and I am not sure which is the best solution, but we will closely work with the journal, and take all nesscary actions to avoid unethical behaviors or potential overlaps. BRs, Zhao , 
  Everyone has the right to retract these articles An unfortunate choice of words. , 
 Here is a SimTexter analysis of the original manuscript by Zulvikar Syambani Ulhaq (left) and the published paper by Jianhui Liu et al. (right). Analysis performed at: https: people.f4.htw-berlin.de ~weberwu simtexter app.html The 2 texts appear to look more similar than expected. ![file] , 
 A comparison of the tables from both manuscripts also shows some unexpected similarities. Here are the Tables 1 from both manuscript compared to each other. The exact same studies are shown in the exact same order, and very similar layout (shown with boxes of the same color). ![file] Here are Tables 2 compared. Numbers are very similar to each other. ![file] Here are Tables 3 compared. Numbers are very similar to each other. ![file] , 
 I did some comparison for the references between the 2 papers, both having 37 references. However, the reference shows unexpected similarity with the same order. From 1 to 15, the same 15 papers are in exactly the same order. Zhao inserted a reference 16,  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement , which not appear in Zulvikaru2019s paper. Then Zulvikaru2019s reference 16~34, are Zhao s 17~35, because of the added Ref #16. These same 19 papers are also in exactly the same order. Then Zulvikaru2019s ref #35 was Hacking D, et al 2004; Zhao dropped this one. Zulvikaru2019s references 36-37 and Zhao s 36-37 are identical. Apparently, Zhao s writer inserted a paper talking in general how a meta-analysis should be done. Then he she dropped a relevant research paper (Hacking, et al 2004). Whichever paper has the extra relevant research paper should be the original one. , 
 I forgot to mention that the analysis mention above #15 was provided by another person who is familiar with the field of biomed research and scientific publishing. , 
 #15 based on the analysis, I made a side-by-side comparison of the references used in these 2 papers. Both sets are in the exact same order with each other. That means the sequential order of citing the 37 references are the same, indicating the flow of writing is highly comparable between the 2 manuscripts. The only exceptions are the addition of the reference #16 citing the PRISMA statement in Zhao s paper, and the omission of Genes Immun 2004;5(4):274-82 in Zhao s paper. This was reference 35 in Ulhaq manuscript. ![](http: i.imgur.com FDSqJXI.jpg) , 
 Dear Dr. Zhao In your response (#11), you mentioned:  *From the submitting hisotry of the other group of authors, I can cleary undestand their frustratation. This kind of situation also occured to me, when I performed a meta-analyse regarding glaucoma*. Please could you provide the reference of the paper about glaucoma you are referring to? , 
 Retraction, October 2020: https: link.springer.com article 10.1007%2Fs40520-020-01720-y  The authors have retracted this article [1] because it overlaps with an unpublished article by Zulvikar Syambani Ulhaq. All authors agree to this retraction. ,