Treatment of Type 1 Diabetes

Abstract

Modulation of neural signaling of a pancreas-related sympathetic nerve is capable of improving glycaemic control by inhibiting T cell activation or migration to the pancreas, and hence providing a way of treating or preventing type 1 diabetes.

Claims

1. A device or system comprising at least one electrode, suitable for placement on or around a pancreas-related sympathetic nerve of a subject, and a signal generator for generating a signal to be applied to the pancreas-related sympathetic nerve via the at least one electrode such that the signal reversibly modulates the neural activity of the pancreas-related sympathetic nerve to produce a change in a physiological parameter in the subject, wherein the change in the physiological parameter is one or more of the group consisting of: an increase in blood insulin level, a reduction in (fasting) blood glucose level, a reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level, a reduction in inflammation systemically (e.g. indicated by the levels of circulating cytokines and/or C- reactive protein) or locally in the pancreas, such as insulitis (e.g. indicated by the levels of C-peptide, autoreactive T cells, and/or autoantibodies), an increase in catecholamine levels in the pancreas, an increase in GABA levels in the pancreas, and an increase in the number of pancreatic β cells in the pancreas.

2. The device or system of claim 1, wherein the change in physiological parameter is one or more of the group consisting of: an increase in blood insulin level, a reduction in (fasting) blood glucose level, a reduction in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level, a reduction in inflammation systemically (e.g. indicated by the levels of circulating cytokines and/or C-reactive protein) or locally in the pancreas, such as insulitis (e.g. indicated by the levels of C-peptide, autoreactive T cells, and/or autoantibodies), and an increase in catecholamine levels in the pancreas.

3. The device or system of claim 1, wherein the pancreas- related sympathetic nerve is a pancreas- related sympathetic nerve supplying the lymphatic system of the pancreas.

4. The device or system of claim 1, wherein the signal stimulates the neural activity of the pancreas- related sympathetic nerve.

5. The device or system of claim 1, wherein the signal generator is a voltage or current source configured to generate an electrical signal to be applied to the pancreas-related sympathetic nerve via the at least one electrode.

6. The device or system of claim 5, wherein the at least one electrode is in the form of an electrode array.

7. The device or system of claim 5, wherein the signal selectively stimulates the neural activity of nerve fibers supplying the lymphatic system of the pancreas.

8. The device or system of claim 5, wherein the electrical signal has a frequency between 0.1 Hz and 100 Hz.

9. The device or system of claim 5, wherein the electrical signal has a current between 0.01 mA and 10 mA.

10. The device or system of claim 5, wherein the electrical signal is a charge-balanced DC signal comprising a cathodic pulse and an anodic pulse.

11. The device or system of claim 1, comprising a detector (e.g. physiological sensor subsystem) for detecting one or more signals indicative of one or more physiological parameters; determining from the one or more signals one or more physiological parameters; determining the one or more physiological parameters indicative of worsening of the physiological parameter; and causing the signal to be applied to the pancreas-related sympathetic nerve via the at least one electrode.

12. The device or system of claim 1, wherein the signal generator is configured to apply the electric signal for a finite period of time.

13. A method of reversibly modulating neural activity in a pancreas-related sympathetic nerve, comprising: (i) implanting in the subject a device or system of claim 1; (ii) positioning the neural interfacing element in signaling contact with the pancreas-related sympathetic nerve; and optionally (iii) activating the device or system.

14. The method of claim 13, wherein the method is for treating type 1 diabetes (T1D).

15. The method of claim 13, further comprising administering GABA, a GABA analogue, or a GABA-enhancing agent to the subject.

16. The method of claim 15, wherein the GABA-enhancing agent is selected from the group consisting of benzodiazepines such as diazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam, lorazepam, or chloradiazepozide; barbituates such as phenobarbital, pentobarbital, butobarbital, amobarbital, secobarbital or thiopental; baclofen; acamprosate; pregabalin; gabapentin; tiagabine; lamotrigine; topiramate; neuroactive steroids such as allopregnalone or ganaxolone; nabiximols such as sativex; and combinations thereof.

17. A method of controlling a device or system comprising at least one electrode, suitable for placement on or around a pancreas-related sympathetic nerve of a subject, and a signal generator for generating a signal to be applied to the pancreas-related sympathetic nerve via the at least one electrode such that the signal reversibly modulates the neural activity of the pancreas-related sympathetic nerve to produce a change in a physiological parameter in the subject, the method comprising the steps of: sending control instructions to the device or system, and applying the signal to the pancreas-related sympathetic nerve in response to the control instructions.

Description

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0139] FIGS. 1A-1E show pancreatic nerve anatomical, electrophysiological and functional characterization in mice. FIG. 1A shows images of pancreatic nerve gross anatomy showing pancreatic artery and blood vessels visualized by Blue Evans injection (right). Kidney (Kid), duodenum (Duo), pancreas (Panc), pancreatic (full arrow head) and abdominal (circles) arteries, pancreatic vein (diamond) and nerve (empty arrow head). FIG. 1B shows CAP recordings (left) and amplitudes (right) in the indicated tissues after pancreatic nerve electrical stimulation in a representative mouse (n=7). Mean+/−s.e.m. FIG. 1C shows epifluorescence images of whole mounted samples of the indicated tissues in td-TomatoTH-Cre mice (n=5). FIGS. 1D and 1E show the impact of pancreatic nerve electrical stimulation on surface pancreatic blood flow measured by laser speckle. Representative color-coded images (FIG. 1D) and quantification (FIG. 1E) before, during and after pancreatic nerve electrical stimulation (450 μA, 10 Hz, 15 sec) (n=7). Quantification was performed in the area delineated by a dotted line.

[0140] FIGS. 2A-2D show visualization and electrophysiological characterization of catecholaminergic fibers in pancreatic lymph nodes (LN). FIG. 2A shows confocal fluorescence image of whole mounted pancreatic LN from tdTomatoTH-Cre mice after injection of Alexa-647-conjugated Wheat Germ Agglutinin (WGA) at low and high magnification. B cell follicles which exhibit a red fluorescence as the result of TH expression in B cells are indicated by arrowheads. FIGS. 2B and 2C show recordings of fluorescent axons electrical activity in the pancreatic LN of tdTomatoTH-Cre mice following pancreatic nerve electrical stimulation (PNES). In particular, FIG. 2B shows FAPs (left) and peak amplitudes as a function of PNES intensity (right) (n=4). FIG. 2C shows the impact of successive PNES on FAP. Representative FAPs (left) and quantification of peak amplitude reduction as a function of PNES frequency (right) (n=4). FIG. 2D shows NE content following PNES (450 μA, 10 Hz) or sham electrostimulation (n=10). Mean+/−s.e.m.

[0141] FIGS. 3A-3C show tissue-specific impact of PNES on immune cell number and function in pancreatic LN. FIG. 3A shows the impact of PNES (450 μA, 10 Hz, 2 mn, 3 times, 3 hours apart) on lymphocyte numbers in pancreatic draining and non-draining LNs (n=14). FIG. 3B shows the impact of PNES (450 μA, 10 Hz, 2 mn, 3 times, 3 hours apart) on LPS-induced cytokine mRNA levels in draining LNs and spleen (n=8). FIG. 3C shows a schematic representation of the experimental protocol used for assessing PNES (450 μA, 10 Hz, 2 mn, 3 times/day) impact on pancreatic auto-antigen cross-presentation (left). Representative FACS profiles of CFSE-labeled CD8+ OVA-specific T cells following PNES and sham electrostimulation (n=7) (middle). T cell proliferation relative to sham electrostimulated mice in mice treated or not with propranolol (right). Mean+/−s.e.m.

[0142] FIGS. 4A-4D show the effect of PNES on glycaemia, β cell proliferation and insulitis in NOD mice. FIGS. 4A to 4D show recently diabetic NOD mice (n=10) were implanted with micro-cuff electrodes. When glycaemia reached 200 mg/dl, PNES (left) or sham electrostimulation (right) were applied (450 μA, 10 Hz, 2 mn) for 4-5 days three times a day. Glycaemia in diabetic NOD mice following PNES and sham electrostimulation. Representative mice (FIG. 4A) and glycaemia increase (n=10) (FIG. 4B) over a two month-period following PNES and sham electrostimulation. FIGS. 4C and 4D show glycaemia over a 4 days-period following individual sessions of PNES and sham electrostimulation. Unpaired (FIG. 4C) and paired representations (FIG. 4D). FIG. 4E shows short-term glycaemia in diabetic NOD mice following PNES and sham electrostimulation. FIG. 4F shows representative confocal images (left) of pancreatic sections following insulin (red) and BrdU (green) staining (left), and number of BrdU+ insulin+ cells per islet (right) (n=6). FIG. 4G shows the proportion of islets exhibiting severe, mild and low immune cell infiltration two weeks after PNES and sham electrostimulation (n=3). Mean+/−s.e.m.

[0143] FIG. 5 shows recordings of fluorescent axons electrical activity in the pancreatic LN of tdTomatoTH-Cre mice following PNES (800 μA, 0.1 Hz). Peak amplitudes following addition of Tetrodotoxin (TTX) to the medium.

[0144] FIG. 6 shows the impact of PNES on myeloid cell number in pancreatic LN. Myeloid cell numbers in the pancreatic draining LNs following PNES (450 μA, 10 Hz, 2 mn, 3 times, 3 hours apart) (n=9). Mean+/−s.e.m.

[0145] FIG. 7 shows the short-term effect of PNS on hyperglycaemia in fed (left panel) and fasted (right panel) in non-diabetic (A) and recently diabetic (B) NOD mice. Mean+/−s.e.m.

[0146] FIG. 8 is a block diagram illustrating elements of a system for performing electrical stimulation in a pancreas-related sympathetic nerve according to the present invention.

[0147] FIG. 9 shows the impact of continuous PNES on glycaemia and insulitis in NOD mice. (a) Schematic representation of the experimental protocol. (b) Glycaemia following continuous PNES in individual mice (n=4/group). (c) Diabetes incidence in NOD-SCID mice (n=13/group). (d) Number of islets per mouse and proportion of islets exhibiting severe, mild and low immune cell infiltration two weeks after PNES. Mean±S.E.M. (n=4/group). (e) Total number of cells (left panel) and number of B, CD4.sup.+ and CD8.sup.+ T cells (left panel) in pancreatic LNs two weeks after PNES. Mean±S.E.M. (n=5-6/group).

[0148] FIG. 10 shows the impact on glycaemia up to one hour post-PNES in NOD mice.

[0149] FIG. 11 is a flow chart showing an example method of reversibly modulating neural activity in a pancreas-related sympathetic nerve.

MODES FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION

Experimental Study 1

[0150] Several nervous pathways including the sympathetic nervous system (SNS) inhibit inflammation [12]. The main SNS neurotransmitters are norepinephrine (NE) and epinephrine (E) that bind both α- and β-adrenergic receptors (AR), among which β2-AR are expressed by most immune cells [13]. The control of inflammation by SNS leads to the vision of a new class of treatments known as bioelectronic medicines based on the modulation of the electrical signaling patterns of these nerves to treat inflammatory diseases [14].

[0151] Type 1 diabetes (T1D) is an autoimmune disease that results from the destruction of insulin-producing pancreatic β cells by autoreactive immune cells [1]. Like other visceral organs, the pancreas is innervated by nerves of the autonomous system including the SNS, which contributes to the control of glycaemia [3]. This study aims to identify a way for the use of bioelectronic medicine to inhibit disease progression in T1D patients.

Methodology

[0152] Mice were obtained through Jackson Laboratory (RIP-OVA high) or Charles River (NOD, C57/BL6, OT-I). All mice were females used between 6 and 12 weeks of age. The RIP-OVA high transgenic mice9 express OVA in pancreatic islets and the OT-I transgenic mice express a TCR-specific for the H2Kb restricted (SIINFEKL) epitope of OVA [15]. All animal breeding and experiments were performed under conditions in accordance with the Inserm and European Union Guidelines. All animal experimental protocols received a local and national committee approval.

[0153] For acute electrostimulations (see FIGS. 1B, 1D and 2D) animals were anesthetized with a mixture of Ketamine (75 mg/kg) and Xylazine (60 mg/kg) i.p. and a hook electrode was placed under the pancreatic nerve and artery. For chronic experiments (see FIGS. 3 and 4) animals were anesthetized with isofluorane and the area around the right abdominal artery next to the kidney was exposed. A 1 mm length 100 μm sling micro-cuff electrodes were implanted (CorTec) onto the pancreatic nerve after isolation. The wires were maintained in place by a stitch point placed on the abdominal muscles and exited abdominally. To avoid animal scraping, the abdomen was wrapped with bandages. A morphinic derivative was given before and after the surgery (Buprecare®, 0.1 mg/kg, i.p. 30 minutes before surgery and 0.05 mg/kg, s.c. after surgery and the following 2 days).

[0154] After placing a hook electrode onto the pancreatic nerve and artery, platinum-recording electrodes were placed onto the pancreatic nerve, pancreatic lymph nodes (LN), pancreas tissue and liver for recording of CAP with wireless 100-system (Multi Channel System). Reference was placed in the nearby tissue.

[0155] After placing a hook electrode onto the pancreatic nerve and artery, platinum-iridium recording electrodes (Phymep) were placed onto the pancreatic nerve, pancreatic LN, pancreas tissue and liver for CAP recording using a wireless recording system (W8, Multi-Channel Systems). Ground/Reference wires were placed into the nearby tissue. For FAP, recordings were performed on explants from tdTomatoTH-Cre that were placed in a recording chamber at room temperature (20-25° C.) superfused at a flow rate of 1 ml min-1 with oxygenated artificial cerebrospinal fluid (ACSF) under an upright microscope (Zeiss) equipped with infrared video camera (Axiocam, Zeiss) and fluorescence. The pancreatic nerve was introduced into a suction-stimulating electrode connected to a STG 4002 stimulator (Multichannel system) piloted by MC-stimulus program (Multichannel systems). Square pulses of 1 ms and intensities ranging from 10-1500 μA were used for stimulation. Recordings were made using pipettes made from borosilicate glass capillary (Hilgenberg) with resistance of 3-6 M□ E when filled with extracellular solution, placed near red fluorescent axons. Signals were amplified using an Axopatch 200B (Axon Instruments), digitilized at 10 kHz via an Digidata 3200 interface (Molecular devices) controlled by pClamp10.0 software (Molecular Devices) and digitally filtered at 3 KHz. All recordings were performed in a Faraday cage.

[0156] All recordings were performed in Faraday cage.

[0157] For experiments on anesthetized animals, Master-8 (A.M.P.I.), PlexStim V2.3 (Plexon) and STG 4002 stimulator (Multichannel system) were used respectively for CAP, pancreatic blood perfusion and FAP recording. For all experiments on conscious animals, mice were placed in individual cage and connected to a PlexStim V2.3 (Plexon) stimulator. Unless specified, the set-up of the electrostimulation were rectangular charged-balanced biphasic pulses with 450 μA pulse amplitude, 2 ms pulse width (positive and negative) at 10 Hz frequency for 2 minutes.

[0158] To measure norepinephrine levels, pancreatic LN were harvested and snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen immediately after electrostimulation. The organ was processed and NE was measured by ELISA (DLD Diagnostika GmbH) according to manufacturer recommendations.

[0159] For flow cytometry, single-cells suspensions were stained with anti-CD45 (clone 30F11), anti-CD3 (17A2), anti-CD4 (RM4-5), anti-CD8α (53-6.7), anti-CD19 (1D3). All antibodies are from BD Biosciences. Dead cells were excluded using 7-AAD staining. Data were acquired on SP6800 (Sony) flow cytometer and analyzed using Kaluza software.

[0160] RT-PCR and Q-PCR. RNA from pancreas were isolated following manufacturers instruction (miRNEasy micro kit, Quiagen) after mechanical dissociation using Lysing Matrix D tubes (FastPrep, MP biomedical). RNA quantitiy and quality were analyzed with Nanodrop and equivalent amount of RNA were used to perform RT-PCR using QuantiTect Reverse transcription kit (Quiagen). Quantitative PCR were performed using SyberGreen Master Kit (Roche) and LightCycler 480 II (Roche). Primers were designed according to PrimerBank (Harvard University). mRNA cytokine expression were normalized to GAPDH using LightCycler software (Roche).

[0161] Glycaemia was monitored using a Free Style Papillon Vision (Abbott) taking a blood drop (<10 μl) from the tail.

[0162] For laser speckle, after anesthesia, the pancreas tissue was exposed and the animal was placed on a heating blanket that was kept at 30-32° C. The pancreas was placed about 30 cm below the Moor-FLPI laser speckle perfusion (LSP) imager (Moor instruments Ltd.). The scanning model was of low density and 25 fps, the time interval was 1 s, exposure time was 20 ms, and 10 frames were continually scanned at each time point (10 frames were averagely processed into a single frame to obtain the mean pancreatic blood perfusion at each time point). Then the pancreatic blood perfusion images were saved and analyzed by the Image Review Program of Moor-FLPI-V2.0 software. The round region of interest (ROI) with the same area in each LSP image was selected for measuring the pancreatic blood perfusion.

[0163] In histogram analysis, removed pancreas were fixed in 10% neutral formalin for 24 hrs, dehydrated with alcohol, embedded in paraffin and sectioned in 8 μm thickness with microtome. Then, section was stained with hematoxylin and eosin, and the grade of insulitis was evaluated under light microscope. The extension of insulitis was determined as the percentage of normal, pen-infiltrated, infiltration of <50% of islet area, or infiltration of >50% of islet area.

[0164] For statistical analysis, the student t-test (see FIGS. 2D, 3C, 4B, 4C and 4D) or Mann-Whitney test (FIGS. 2D, 3A, 3B and 4F) were performed to calculate statistical differences of Gaussian and non-Gaussian distributed data respectively.

Results and Discussion

[0165] Gross anatomy of the pancreatic region in C57BL/6 mice showed a single artery (diameter 500 μm) branching from the abdominal artery, supplying blood to the pancreas head and part of the duodenum, and associated with a 50 μm-diameter nerve-like structure (see FIG. 1A). To confirm that this structure was a nerve and to identify the innervated tissues, a hook electrode was placed onto it and a recording electrode on visceral tissues. Electrostimulation was applied and Compound Action Potentials (CAPs) were recorded in pancreatic lymph nodes (LNs) and pancreas head, but not in liver (FIG. 1B). To investigate whether this nerve was catecholaminergic, fluorescent reporter tdTomatoTH-Cre transgenic mice carrying the tdTomato fluorescent protein gene downstream the tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) gene promoter were used. Pancreatic nerve-like structures exhibited red fluorescence in tdTomatoTH-Cre, demonstrating that they contained catecholaminergic fibers (see FIG. 1C). In agreement with the ability of the SNS to induce vasoconstriction, high frequency and amplitude electrical stimulation (20 Hz, 1 mA) reduced pancreatic blood flow when applied to the pancreatic nerve (see FIG. 1D). Red fluorescent axons were also evidenced in the pancreatic LN medulla zone further confirming that these nerves did not only project to the pancreas itself, but also to the LNs that drained this tissue (see FIG. 2A). To electrophysiological characterize the catecholaminergic fibers projecting to pancreatic LN, the pancreatic nerve was placed into a suction electrode and Field Action Potentials (FAP) of red fluorescent fibers within this LN were recorded using a microelectrode (see FIG. 2B). FAP were readily detected when PNES intensity was above 400 μA (see FIG. 2B) and inhibited by tetrodotoxin (TTX) treatment (see FIG. 5). Exhaustion of axonal excitability was detected when frequency was above 10 Hz (FIG. 2C) suggesting that this nerve contained unmyelinated postganglionic fibers [16].

[0166] For peripheral nerve electrostimulation to be used for therapeutic intervention, electrical parameters need to be adjusted in order to minimize off-target effects while allowing release of therapeutic levels of neurotransmitters. To identify such parameters, different amplitudes and frequencies were tested and eventually identified parameters (10 Hz, 450 μA) that did not reduce pancreatic blood flow (see FIG. 1D) while increasing norepinephrine (NE) levels in pancreatic LNs (see FIG. 2D).

[0167] Based on these results, these parameters were used for the rest of the study.

[0168] Next, the impact of PNES on immune cell number and activation in pancreatic LNs were investigated. Because drugs used for anesthesia interfere with physiology and more specifically immunity, a minimally traumatic surgical procedure for chronically implantation of micro-cuffs electrodes onto the pancreatic nerve was developed allowing experiments in conscious animals. Compared to sham-stimulated mice, stimulated mice exhibited higher number of T and B-lymphocytes, but not myeloid cell types (see FIG. 6), in pancreatic draining but not non-draining LNs (see FIG. 3A). This latter result is consistent with the role of (32-AR in lymphocyte egress from LN [17]. PNES also reduced LPS-induced pro-inflammatory cytokine mRNA levels in pancreatic LN but not spleen (see FIG. 3B). In agreement with the role of (32-AR in antigen cross-presentation [18], PNES inhibited pancreatic auto-antigen cross-presentation as shown by reduced proliferation of adoptively transferred OVA-specific CD8+ TCR transgenic T-cells in RIP-OVA transgenic mice that selectively expressed OVA in pancreatic islet β cells (see FIG. 3C). The effects of PNES on both immune cell accumulation and LPS-induced pro-inflammatory cytokine mRNA production in draining LNs were abolished in β2-AR−/− - mice demonstrating that they were mediated by the binding of NE to β2-AR (see FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B). Further experiments using β1/β2 adrenergic receptor antagonist propranolol showed that the effect of PNES auto-antigen cross-presentation was β-AR-dependent (see FIG. 3C).

[0169] The impact of PNES on T1D progression was investigated in Non-Obese-Diabetic (NOD) mice that spontaneously develop insulitis and autoimmune diabetes between 3 and 6 months of age. Female NOD mice were monitored daily for hyperglycaemia and recently diabetic mice were implanted with micro-cuff electrode onto the pancreatic nerve (n=16). After surgical recovery, PNES was applied or not as soon as glycaemia reached 200 mg/dl three times a day for 3-4 days. Glycaemia increased more slowly in mice submitted to PNES sessions over more than a month compared to sham-electrostimulated animals (see FIG. 4A and FIG. 4B). A beneficial impact of PNES on glycaemia was evidenced as early as two days after session initiation (see FIG. 4C). On day 4, 80% of electrostimulated mice showed a decrease in glycaemia compared to 10% in sham-stimulated animals (see FIG. 4D).

[0170] Several underlying mechanisms could account for the beneficial impact of PNES on glycaemia including a direct increase of insulin production by β cells, the induction of islet β cell proliferation and a reduced inhibitory effect of infiltrating immune cells on β cell activity. PNES did not have any impact on glycaemia in diabetic or non-diabetic mice for up to one hour suggesting that it did not directly induces insulin production (see FIG. 4E and FIG. 7). To investigate the impact of PNES on pancreatic β-cell proliferation, mice implanted with micro-cuff electrodes and submitted to PNES for 5 days while receiving BrdU. Quantification of BrdU+ insulin-secreting cells showed no significant difference between PNES group and sham-electrostimulated group suggesting that PNES did not induce β cell proliferation (see FIG. 4F). In contrast, insulitis was reduced in stimulated mice compared to sham-stimulated mice when analyzed 15 days after PNES initiation (see FIG. 4G).

Conclusion

[0171] In summary, the inventors identified a catecholaminergic nerve that projects to the pancreatic lymphatic system (e.g. LN) and demonstrated that electrostimulation of this nerve inhibited T1D progression in NOD mice with minimal off target effects. The beneficial impact of PNES on glycaemia was likely be immune-mediated as suggested by reduced levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines and accumulation of lymphocytes in pancreatic LNs, reduced antigen cross-presentation and insulitis. Besides providing the proof-of-concept that electrical stimulation of a pancreas-related sympathetic nerve could be used to inhibit T1D progression, this study supports a new class of treatments known as bioelectronic medicines based on the modulation of the electrical signaling patterns of peripheral nerves to treat immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

Experimental Study 2

[0172] The impact of PNES on T1D progression in NOD mice that spontaneously develop autoimmune diabetes between 3 and 6 months of age was next investigated. Once diagnosed with diabetes, NOD mice were implanted with a micro-cuff electrode onto the pancreatic nerve and PNES was applied one day later three times a day for 6 weeks (FIG. 9a).

Methodology

Mice

[0173] C57BL/6, NOD, NOD-SCID and OT-112 mice were purchased from Charles River. RIP-mOVA13, tdTomatoTH-Cre 14, 15 and ADRB2ko mice were purchased from The Jackson Laboratory and backcrossed on the C57BL/6 background for at least 10 generations. All experiments were performed with female 8-12 wk old mice unless otherwise indicated. Mice were housed on a 12 hours light/dark cycle (lights on/off at 7 am/7 pm) with food ad libitum. All animal breeding and experiments were performed under conditions in accordance with the Inserm and European Union Guidelines. All animal experimental protocols received a local and national committee approval.

Electrodes and Surgery

[0174] For studies in anaesthetized animals, mice were anaesthetized by an intraperitoneal injection of a mixture of ketamine (75 mg/kg) and xylazine (60 mg/kg) and a hook electrode was placed under the pancreatic nerve. For studies in conscious animals, mice were anaesthetized with isoflurane and the area around the right abdominal artery next to the kidney was exposed. One mm length 100 μm-sling micro-cuff electrodes (CorTec) were implanted onto the pancreatic nerve.

Electrostimulation

[0175] Mice were placed in individual cage and connected to either a PlexStim V2.3 (Plexon) or MAPS (Axonic) stimulator. Unless specified, the set-up for electrostimulation were rectangular charged-balanced biphasic pulses with 450 μA pulse amplitude, 2 ms pulse width (positive and negative) at 10 Hz frequency for 2 minutes.

Adoptive Cell Transfer into NOD-SCID Mice

[0176] Splenocytes from overtly diabetic NOD mice were prepared and injected intravenously into 6 wk-old NOD-SCID mice (5×10.sup.6 cells/ mouse).

Glycaemia

[0177] Glycaemia was monitored using a Free Style Papillon Vision (Abbott) on a blood drop (<10 μl) harvested from the tail. NOD and NOD-SCID mice were considered diabetic when glycaemia was >250 mg/dl for two consecutive days.

[0178] Flow Cytometry

[0179] Single-cell suspensions were stained with anti-CD45 (clone 30F11), anti- CD3 (17A2), anti-CD4 (RM4-5), anti-CD8═ (53-6.7), anti-CD19 (1D3). All antibodies were purchased from BD Biosciences. Dead cells were excluded using 7-AAD staining. Data were acquired on a SP6800 (Sony) flow cytometer and analyzed using the Kaluza software.

Statistics

[0180] Diabetes progression was plotted using Kaplan-Meier's curves and differences between groups were estimated using the log-rank test. Normality of sample distribution was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. For comparison between two groups, statistical significance was assessed using paired or unpaired Student's t-test or the Mann-Whitney U-test as appropriate. For comparison between more than groups, statistical significance was assessed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test. All statistical analysis were performed using GraphPad Prism v.6.

Results and Discussion

[0181] Mice returned to normoglycaemia after surgery, a phenomenon likely due to the anti-inflammatory effect of anesthetics [19-20]. However, while glycaemia started to increase again in sham stimulated mice resulting in full-blown diabetes, it remained below 150 mg/ml in PNES animals (FIG. 9b). PNES did not impact glycaemia in diabetic NOD mice for up to 1 hour suggesting that it did not directly impact insulin secretion (FIG. 10).

[0182] To investigate the underlying mechanisms of PNES-mediated protection, the inventors used the well-characterized synchronous model of T1D in which diabetogenic T cells from NOD mice are transferred into immune-deficient syngeneic NOD-SCID recipients [21]. While all (13 out of 13) sham stimulated mice developed T1D within 4 weeks after adoptive cell transfer, only 55% (7 out of 13) of PNES recipients did p=0.015, FIG. 9c). This shows that PNES inhibited T1D progression by acting on pathogenic effector T cells.

[0183] In another set of experiments, mice were sacrificed 2 weeks after adoptive cell transfer and analyzed for both insulitis and number of lymphocytes in pancreatic LNs. PNES mice had 2.7-fold as many islets than sham stimulated mice (84.5±20.3 versus 31.75±3.6, p=0.029) (FIG. 9d). In addition, the proportion of non-infiltrated islets was higher in PNES mice (55% versus 17.5%) (FIG. 9d). Furthermore, while PNES and sham stimulated mice exhibited similar number of lymphocytes in non-draining LNs, PNES mice had 4- to 5-fold more lymphocytes in draining LNs (29.0±12.0×10.sup.4 versus 6.0±1.5×10.sup.4 per mouse, p=0.006), a result similar to what we had observed in C57BL/6 mice (FIG. 9e).

Conclusion

[0184] These results show that applying electrical stimulation to a non-vagal nerves could have therapeutic effects for the treatment or prevention of immune-mediated inflammatory disorders such as T1D.

REFERENCES

[0185] [1] Herold, K. C. (2013). The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 1(4):261-263. [0186] [2] Herold, K. C. et al. (2013). Nature Reviews Immunology, 13(4):243-256. [0187] [3] Ahren, B. (2000). Diabetologia, 43(4):393-410. [0188] [4] Cesmebasi et al. (2014). Clinical Anatomy, 28(4):527-537. [0189] [5] Accornero et al. (1977). J. Physiol., 273:539-560. [0190] [6] Ayres et al. (2016). J. Neurophysiol., 116:51-60. [0191] [7] Bruns et al. (2015). Neurology and Urodynamics, 34:65-71. [0192] [8] Soltani, N, et al. (2011) PNAS, 108:11692-11697. [0193] [9] Ben-Othman, N, et al. (2017). Cell, 168:73-85. [0194] [10] Franke et al. (2014). J. Neural Eng., 11(5):056012. [0195] [11] Duke et al. (2012). J. Neural Eng., 9(3):036003. [0196] [12] Chavan, S. S. and Tracey, K. J. (2014). Nature Medicine, 20:239-241. [0197] [13] Nance, D. M. & Sanders, V. M. (2007). Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 21(6):736-745. [0198] [14] Birmingham, K. et al. (2014). Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 13(6):399-400. [0199] [15] Hogquist, K. A. et al. (1994). Cell, 76(1):17-27. [0200] [16] Duclaux, R. et al. (1976). Journal of Physiology, 260(2):487-495. [0201] [17] Nakai et al. (2014). J. Exp. Med., 211(13):2583-2598. [0202] [18] Herve, J. et al. (2013). Journal of Immunology: 190:3163-3171. [0203] [19] Lee, H, et al. (2007) Shock Augusta Ga., 27:373-379. [0204] [20] Lee, H, et al. (2007). Am. J. Physiol. Renal. Physiol, 293:F713-722. [0205] [21] Christianson, S, et al. (1993). Diabetes, 42:44-55.