4.7 Article

Diet-induced Obese Mice Are Leptin Insufficient After Weight Reduction

期刊

OBESITY
卷 17, 期 9, 页码 1702-1709

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2009.106

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [F32 DK075255] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DIABETES AND DIGESTIVE AND KIDNEY DISEASES [F32DK075255] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Behavioral therapies aimed at reducing excess body fat result in limited fat loss after dieting. To understand the causes for maintenance of adiposity, high-fat (HF) diet-induced obese (1310) mice were switched to a low-fat chow diet, and the effects of chow on histological and molecular alterations of adipose tissue and metabolic parameters were examined. DIO mice reduced and stabilized their body weights after being switched to chow (HF-chow), but retained a greater amount of adiposity than chow-fed mice. Reduction in adipocyte volume, not number, caused a decrease in fat mass. HF-chow mice showed normalized circulating insulin and leptin levels, improved glucose tolerance, and reduced inflammatory status in white adipose tissue (WAT). Circulating leptin levels corrected for fat mass were lower in HF-chow mice. Leptin administration was used to test whether reduced leptin level of HF-chow mice inhibited further fat loss. Leptin treatment led to an additional reduction in adiposity. Finally, HF-HF mice had lower mRNA levels of beta(3)-adrenergic receptor (beta(3)-AR) in epididymal WAT (EWAT) compared to chow-fed mice, and diet change led to an increase in the WAT beta(3)-AR mRNA levels that were similar to the levels of chow-fed mice, suggesting an elevation in sympathetic activation of WAT during diet switch relative to HF-HF mice leading to the reduced leptin level and proinflammatory cytokine content. In summary, HF-chow mice were resistant to further fat loss due to leptin insufficiency. Diet alteration from HF to low fat improved metabolic state of DIO mice, although their adiposity was defended at a higher level.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据