4.6 Article

Trans-Fatty Acids Aggravate Obesity, Insulin Resistance and Hepatic Steatosis in C57BL/6 Mice, Possibly by Suppressing the IRS1 Dependent Pathway

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 21, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules21060705

关键词

trans-fatty acid; obesity; insulin resistance; hepatic steatosis

资金

  1. Surface Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China [81570224, 81521001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Trans-fatty acid consumption has been reported as a risk factor for metabolic disorders and targeted organ damages. Nonetheless, little is known about the roles and mechanisms of trans-fatty acids in obesity, insulin resistance (IR) and hepatic steatosis. Adult C57BL/6 male mice were fed with four different diets for 20 weeks: normal diet (ND), high fat diet (HFD), low trans-fatty acids diet (LTD) and high trans-fatty acid diet (HTD). The diet-induced metabolic disorders were assessed by evaluating body weight, glucose tolerance test, hepatic steatosis and plasma lipid profiles post 20-week diet. Histological (H&E, Oil-Red-O) staining and western blot analysis were employed to assess liver steatosis and potential signaling pathways. After 20-weeks of diet, the body weights of the four groups were 29.61 +/- 1.89 g (ND), 39.04 +/- 4.27 g (HFD), 34.09 +/- 2.62 g (LTD) and 43.78 +/- 4.27 g (HTD) (p < 0.05), respectively. HFD intake significantly impaired glucose tolerance, which was impaired further in the mice consuming the HTD diet. The effect was further exacerbated by HTD diet. Moreover, the HTD group exhibited significantly more severe liver steatosis compared with HFD group possibly through regulating adipose triglyceride lipase. The group consuming the HTD also exhibited significantly reduced levels of IRS1, phosphor-PKC and phosphor-AKT. These results support our hypothesis that consumption of a diet high in trans-fatty acids induces higher rates of obesity, IR and hepatic steatosis in male C57BL/6 mice, possibly by suppressing the IRS1dependent pathway.

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

4.6
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