Kirk Habegger
Alejandra Tomas
Roger Chen
Charles Harris
William Roell4
Tamer Coskun- 1Comprehensive Diabetes Center and Department of Medicine - Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, United States
- 2Section of Cell Biology and Functional Genomics, Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, Department of Metabolism, Digestion and Reproduction, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
- 3Department of Endocrinology, St Vincent’s Hospital, University of New South Wales, Darlinghurst, NSW, Australia
- 4Lilly Research Laboratories, Indianapolis, IN, United States
Editorial on the Research Topic
The impact of GIP/GIPR on metabolic diseases: how the field is evolving
The incretin effect describes the enhancement of glucose-dependent insulin secretion when glucose is delivered orally as compared to intravenously (1). This is driven primarily by two gut-derived peptide hormones, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) and glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) (2, 3). GLP-1 and GIP are released in response to food intake by intestinal L cells and K cells, respectively (4–6). These hormones are fundamental in glucose homeostasis accounting for 50-70% of the insulin response to oral glucose with GIP as the predominant regulator in healthy individuals (7), primarily by enhancing glucose-stimulated insulin secretion from pancreatic β-cells. Beyond glucose regulation, GIP and GLP-1 play crucial roles in appetite regulation and body weight (6, 8). For decades, research and development of GLP-1 receptor (GLP-1R) agonists has proven clinically beneficial. However, more recent preclinical and clinical exploration of GIP and GIP receptor (GIPR) pharmacology has resulted in newfound interest in GIPR as a target for the treatment of type 2 diabetes and obesity.
Although discovered before GLP-1, GIP was originally named “gastric inhibitory polypeptide” due to high-dose effects on gastric motility and acid secretion (9). Its primary physiological role was later identified to enhance glucose-dependent insulinotropic action, and thus it was renamed “glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide”. GIP is a 42-amino acid peptide hormone (10). Similar to GLP-1, GIP has a short half-life (7 minutes) and is inactivated by DPP-4 into GIP(3-42) (11). GIP signals via a GPCR, the GIP receptor (GIPR) (12). The GIPR gene is expressed in various peripheral tissues, including pancreatic β-cells, adipose tissue, stomach, bone, and heart, as well as several brain regions including the olfactory bulb, cerebral cortex, hippocampus, and brainstem (6). Like GLP-1R, GIPR activation in pancreatic β-cells potently stimulates glucose-dependent insulin secretion. GIPR also exerts broad extra-pancreatic actions including regulation of bone, vasculature, heart rate, arterial blood pressure (6), capillary perfusion and triacylglycerol deposition in adipose tissue (13). Importantly GIPR agonism has demonstrated weight-independent improvements in insulin sensitivity (14) as well as improving adipose tissue lipid metabolism (13). Additionally, GIPR activation contributes to body weight reduction through centrally mediated appetite suppression and may alleviate drug-induced nausea (15).
While harnessing incretin signaling for the treatment of T2D and obesity has focused on GLP-1R monoagonism, more recent findings with GIPR and GLP-1R co-agonism identifies GIPR as an important therapeutic target as well. Preclinical and clinical studies have demonstrated combining GIPR and GLP-1R agonism in a single molecule confers superior glucose and weight lowering compared to GLP-1R monoagonism (16). Clinical studies with a GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonist have demonstrated increased insulin sensitivity, insulin secretion, and fat oxidation, and furthermore reduced calorie intake compared with selective GLP-1 receptor agonist (17–19).
Any discussion of this Research Topic would be incomplete without mentioning the paradoxical evidence that both activating and inhibiting the GIP receptor can lead to beneficial effects in the treatment of obesity and T2D. In contrast to the wealth of experimental physiology and pharmacology identifying the benefits of GIPR agonism, genetic evidence has suggested that GIPR antagonism may be metabolically favorable as well including potential effects on body weight (20). This has led to pharmaceutical development of GIPR antagonists either on their own or as unimolecular multiagonists (coupled to GLP-1RAs). Consistent with the metabolic benefits associated with unimolecular GIP/GLP-1R co-agonists, GIP-overexpression and adipocyte-specific GIPR overexpression protects mice from diet-induced obesity (21). Conversely, inhibition of GIPR signaling imparts clear benefits in obesity and T2D models. Gipr deletion and pharmacological GIPR antagonism in mice provide protection from diet-induced obesity and glucose intolerance (22, 23). While mechanisms underlying this paradox are still under investigation, ultimately, this situation highlights the multifaceted nature of GIP biology, where both increasing and decreasing GIPR signaling has demonstrated therapeutic advantages depending on the specific metabolic context.
Articles in this special edition expand upon these themes and detail the impact that GIP/GIPR based therapies have had on the treatment of metabolic diseases. Corrao et al. review and summarize cardiometabolic benefits of the dual GIPR and GLP-1R agonist, tirzepatide, in clinical trials including weight loss, glucose reduction, blood pressure, and lipid levels. Douros et al. review the physiology of common adverse events observed with GLP1-R agonists such as nausea and how GIPR modulates these neural pathways. Koefoed-Hansen et al. review the history and current data supporting GIPR antagonism in the treatment of metabolic disease and describe some of the current GIPR antagonists in clinical development. James-Okoro et al. describe a novel mechanism in which GIPR activation may mediate neural pathways indirectly by acting on glial oligodendrocytes. Liu describe ethical and social challenges in a post-incretin world. Peiber et al. describe counterregulatory hormonal response in people with T2D treated with dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist, tirzepatide versus placebo during a hypoglycemic clamp procedure.
The advent of GLP-1R agonists has changed the treatment landscape for individuals with T2D and obesity. This field has again been revolutionized by the inclusion of GIPR agonism in the form of single-molecule co-agonism. The efficacy of these treatments is without question; and additional hormone receptor affinity (e.g. glucagon and amylin receptors) may enhance treatments in this already efficacious class. Finally, the biology of GIPR agonism vs antagonism is still an open debate that will likely influence the application of these therapeutics in the future.
Author contributions
KH: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. AT: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. RC: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. CH: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. WR: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. TC: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Acknowledgments
The handling editors would like to thank all authors for their participation and efforts in this Research Topic.
Conflict of interest
CH, RW, and TC are employees of and hold equity in Eli Lilly.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The author(s) declared that they were an editorial board member of Frontiers, at the time of submission. This had no impact on the peer review process and the final decision.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Nauck MA and Meier JJ. The incretin effect in healthy individuals and those with type 2 diabetes: physiology, pathophysiology, and response to therapeutic interventions. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. (2016) 4:525–36. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(15)00482-9
2. Meier JJ, Nauck MA, Schmidt WE, and Gallwitz B. Gastric inhibitory polypeptide: the neglected incretin revisited. Regul Pept. (2002) 107:1–13. doi: 10.1016/S0167-0115(02)00039-3
3. Holst JJ. Glucagon-like peptide-1: from extract to agent. The Claude Bernard Lecture, 2005. Diabetologia. (2006) 49:253–60. doi: 10.1007/s00125-005-0107-1
4. Lee YC, Brubaker PL, and Drucker DJ. Developmental and tissue-specific regulation of proglucagon gene expression. Endocrinology. (1990) 127:2217–22. doi: 10.1210/endo-127-5-2217
5. Wang SY, Chi MM, Li L, Moley KH, and Wice BM. Studies with GIP/Ins cells indicate secretion by gut K cells is KATP channel independent. Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab. (2003) 284:E988–1000. doi: 10.1152/ajpendo.00398.2002
6. Muller TD, Adriaenssens A, Ahren B, Bluher M, Birkenfeld AL, Campbell JE, et al. Glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP). Mol Metab. (2025) 95:102118. doi: 10.1016/j.molmet.2025.102118
7. Nauck MA, Homberger E, Siegel EG, Allen RC, Eaton RP, Ebert R, et al. Incretin effects of increasing glucose loads in man calculated from venous insulin and C-peptide responses. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (1986) 63:492–8. doi: 10.1210/jcem-63-2-492
8. Muller TD, Finan B, Bloom SR, D’Alessio D, Drucker DJ, Flatt PR, et al. Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1). Mol Metab. (2019) 30:72–130. doi: 10.1016/j.molmet.2019.09.010
9. Dupre J, Ross SA, Watson D, and Brown JC. Stimulation of insulin secretion by gastric inhibitory polypeptide in man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (1973) 37:826–8. doi: 10.1210/jcem-37-5-826
10. Polak JM, Bloom SR, Kuzio M, Brown JC, and Pearse AG. Cellular localization of gastric inhibitory polypeptide in the duodenum and jejunum. Gut. (1973) 14:284–8. doi: 10.1136/gut.14.4.284
11. Deacon CF, Nauck MA, Meier J, Hucking K, and Holst JJ. Degradation of endogenous and exogenous gastric inhibitory polypeptide in healthy and in type 2 diabetic subjects as revealed using a new assay for the intact peptide. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. (2000) 85:3575–81. doi: 10.1210/jcem.85
12. Usdin TB, Mezey E, Button DC, Brownstein MJ, and Bonner TI. Gastric inhibitory polypeptide receptor, a member of the secretin-vasoactive intestinal peptide receptor family, is widely distributed in peripheral organs and the brain. Endocrinology. (1993) 133:2861–70. doi: 10.1210/endo.133.6.8243312
13. Regmi A, Aihara E, Christe ME, Varga G, Beyer TP, Ruan X, et al. Tirzepatide modulates the regulation of adipocyte nutrient metabolism through long-acting activation of the GIP receptor. Cell Metab. (2024) 36:1898–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2024.06.012
14. Samms RJ, Christe ME, Collins KA, Pirro V, Droz BA, Holland AK, et al. GIPR agonism mediates weight-independent insulin sensitization by tirzepatide in obese mice. J Clin Invest. (2021) 131:12. doi: 10.1172/JCI146353
15. Knop FK, Urva S, Rettiganti M, Benson CT, Roell WC, Mather KJ, et al. A long-acting glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide receptor agonist improves the gastrointestinal tolerability of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist therapy. Diabetes Obes Metab. (2024) 26:5474–8. doi: 10.1111/dom.15875
16. Aronne LJ, Horn DB, le Roux CW, Ho W, Falcon BL, Gomez Valderas E, et al. Tirzepatide as compared with semaglutide for the treatment of obesity. N Engl J Med. (2025) 393:26–36. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2416394
17. Heise T, Mari A, DeVries JH, Urva S, Li J, Pratt EJ, et al. Effects of subcutaneous tirzepatide versus placebo or semaglutide on pancreatic islet function and insulin sensitivity in adults with type 2 diabetes: a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, parallel-arm, phase 1 clinical trial. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. (2022) 10:418–29. doi: 10.1016/S2213-8587(22)00085-7
18. Ravussin E, Sanchez-Delgado G, Martin CK, Beyl RA, Greenway FL, O’Farrell LS, et al. Tirzepatide did not impact metabolic adaptation in people with obesity, but increased fat oxidation. Cell Metab. (2025) 37:1060–74. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2025.03.011
19. Martin CK, Carmichael OT, Carnell S, Considine RV, Kareken DA, Dydak U, et al. Tirzepatide on ingestive behavior in adults with overweight or obesity: a randomized 6-week phase 1 trial. Nat Med. (2025) 31(9):3141–50. doi: 10.1038/s41591-025-03774-9
20. Lyssenko V, Eliasson L, Kotova O, Pilgaard K, Wierup N, Salehi A, et al. Pleiotropic effects of GIP on islet function involve osteopontin. Diabetes. (2011) 60:2424–23. doi: 10.2337/db10-1532
21. Yu X, Chen S, Funcke JB, Straub LG, Pirro V, Emont MP, et al. The GIP receptor activates futile calcium cycling in white adipose tissue to increase energy expenditure and drive weight loss in mice. Cell Metab. (2025) 37:187–204.e7. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2024.11.003
22. Miyawaki K, Yamada Y, Ban N, Ihara Y, Tsukiyama K, Zhou H, et al. Inhibition of gastric inhibitory polypeptide signaling prevents obesity. Nat Med. (2002) 8:738–42. doi: 10.1038/nm727
Keywords: GIP - glucose-dependent insulinotropic peptide, GIPR, intretin-based therapy, obesity, type-2 diabetes (T2DM)
Citation: Habegger K, Tomas A, Chen R, Harris C, Roell W and Coskun T (2025) Editorial: The impact of GIP/GIPR on metabolic diseases: how the field is evolving. Front. Endocrinol. 16:1710843. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1710843
Received: 22 September 2025; Accepted: 02 October 2025;
Published: 14 October 2025.
Edited and reviewed by:
Jared Rutter, The University of Utah, United StatesCopyright © 2025 Habegger, Tomas, Chen, Harris, Roell and Coskun. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Kirk Habegger, aGFiZWdnZXJAdWFiLmVkdQ==