4.5 Article

A comparative study on the effects of high-fat diet and endurance training on the PGC-1 alpha-FNDC5/irisin pathway in obese and nonobese male C57BL/6 mice

期刊

APPLIED PHYSIOLOGY NUTRITION AND METABOLISM
卷 43, 期 7, 页码 651-662

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/apnm-2017-0614

关键词

endurance training; Fndc5; high-fat diet; irisin; obesity

资金

  1. University of Isfahan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present study was performed to clarify how a combined exercise/diet treatment could affect the expression level of the muscle fibronectin type III domain containing 5 (Fndc5) with respect to body fat mass. Male C57BL/6 mice were divided into 2 groups including low-fat (LF) and high-fat (HF) diets for 12 weeks. Then, LF fed (nonobese) and HF fed mice (obese) were divided into the following 4 groups: HF-Exercise, HF-Sedentary, LF-Exercise, and LF-Sedentary. The exercise group exercised on a motor-driven treadmill for 45 min/day, 5 days/week for 8 weeks. Mice were sacrificed 24 11 after the final exercise session. Gastrocnemius muscle and the visceral adipose tissue were excised and frozen for the assessment of proliferator-activated receptor gamma coactivator 1 alpha (Pgc-1 alpha) and Fndc5 messenger RNA (mRNA) and protein levels. Data indicated that protein level of muscle PGC-la was decreased in HF versus LF groups and in obese versus nonobese mice. Moreover, Fndc5 mRNA levels were increased in the muscle tissue of HF versus LF groups and in obese versus nonobese mice. Also, in the gastrocnemius skeletal muscle, protein levels of FNDC5 were significantly higher in the HF fed mice, as compared with their low-fat fed counterparts, similar to what was observed for exercised versus sedentary mice. Overall, we found that the HF diet increased Fndc5 transcript levels in the skeletal muscle, but exercise had a minimal effect on the transcript level of Fndc5, whereas endurance training increased the protein content of FNDC5 in the skeletal muscle.

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