4.8 Article

Developmental and functional heterogeneity of white adipocytes within a single fat depot

期刊

EMBO JOURNAL
卷 38, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.15252/embj.201899291

关键词

adipose tissue; development; lineage tracing; metabolic syndrome; obesity

资金

  1. NIH [R01 DK082655, DK036836, DK007260]
  2. Joslin DRC [P30 DK036836]
  3. Joslin training grant [T32 DK007260]
  4. American Diabetes Association
  5. Mary K. Iacocca Professorship
  6. Ohio University College of Osteopathic Medicine
  7. American Diabetes Association Junior Faculty Development Award [1-17-JDF-055]
  8. iMed the initiative for personalized medicine of the Helmholtz Association
  9. project Ageing and Metabolic Programming (AMPro)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recent studies suggest that, even within a single adipose depot, there may be distinct subpopulations of adipocytes. To investigate this cellular heterogeneity, we have developed multiple conditionally immortalized clonal preadipocyte lines from white adipose tissue of mice. Analysis of these clones reveals at least three white adipocyte subpopulations. These subpopulations have differences in metabolism and differentially respond to inflammatory cytokines, insulin, and growth hormones. These also have distinct gene expression profiles and can be tracked by differential expression of three marker genes: Wilms' tumor 1, transgelin, and myxovirus 1. Lineage tracing analysis with dual-fluorescent reporter mice indicates that these adipocyte subpopulations have differences in gene expression and metabolism that mirror those observed in the clonal cell lines. Furthermore, preadipocytes and adipocytes from these subpopulations differ in their abundance in different fat depots. Thus, white adipose tissue, even in a single depot, is comprised of distinct subpopulations of white adipocytes with different physiological phenotypes. These differences in adipocyte composition may contribute to the differences in metabolic behavior and physiology of different fat depots.

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

4.8
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