4.5 Article

Effect of GPR84 deletion on obesity and diabetes development in mice fed long chain or medium chain fatty acid rich diets

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NUTRITION
卷 57, 期 5, 页码 1737-1746

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00394-017-1456-5

关键词

Fatty acid receptor; Medium chain fatty acid; Dietary study

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) [1071659]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although there is good evidence showing that diets rich in medium chain fatty acids (MCFAs) have less marked obesogenic and diabetogenic effects than diets rich in long chain fatty acids (LCFAs), the role of the pro-inflammatory, medium chain fatty acid receptor (GPR84) in the aetiology of obesity and glucose intolerance is not well characterised. We set out to determine whether GPR84 expression influences obesity and glucose intolerance susceptibility in MCFA and LCFA rich diet fed mice. Wild type (WT) and GPR84 knockout (KO) mice were fed a control, MCFA or LCFA diet, and body mass, heart, liver and epididymal fat mass was assessed, as well as glucose tolerance and adipocyte size. LCFA diets increased body mass and decreased glucose tolerance in both WT and GPR84 KO animals while MCFA diets had no effect on these parameters. There were no differences in body weight when comparing WT and GPR84 KO mice on the respective diets. Glucose tolerance was also similar in WT and GPR84 KO mice irrespective of diet. Liver mass was increased following LCFA feeding in WT but not GPR84 KO mice. Hepatic triglyceride content was increased in GPR84 KO animals fed MCFA, and myocardial triglyceride content was increased in GPR84 KO animals fed LCFA. GPR84 deletion had no effects on body weight or glucose tolerance in mice fed either a high MCFA or LCFA diet. GPR84 may influence lipid metabolism, as GPR84 KO mice had smaller livers and increased myocardial triglyceride accumulation when fed LCFA diets, and increased liver triglyceride accumulation in responses to increased dietary MCFAs.

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

4.5
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