3.8 Article

Perilipin expression in human adipose tissues: Effects of severe obesity, gender, and depot

期刊

OBESITY RESEARCH
卷 11, 期 8, 页码 930-936

出版社

NORTH AMER ASSOC STUDY OBESITY
DOI: 10.1038/oby.2003.128

关键词

fat cells; adipocytes; subcutaneous; omentum

资金

  1. NIDDK NIH HHS [DK 52398, DK 50647] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Perilipins are phosphoproteins that are localized to the surface of triacylglycerol droplets within adipocytes where they regulate the rate of lipolysis. We sought to determine the effects of severe obesity and depot [omental (Om) vs. subcutaneous (Sc)] on perilipin expression in the adipose tissue of individuals. Research Methods and Procedures: Samples of Om and Sc adipose tissues obtained at surgery from severely obese subjects and fat aspirations from nonobese subjects were analyzed for perilipin protein and mRNA levels by Northern and Western analysis. Results: Perilipin A (periA) was the major perilipin expressed in adipose tissues. periA mRNA relative abundance was significantly lower in Sc adipose tissue from severely obese compared to that from nonobese subjects. Western blotting of adipose tissue extracts showed that periA protein levels expressed relative to tissue protein or fat cell surface area were significantly lower (similar to -40%) in abdominal Sc adipose tissue from severely obese compared to that from nonobese subjects. However, the calculated mass of perilipin per fat cell did not differ between the two groups. Perilipin mRNA levels were higher in Sc compared to Om adipose tissue from obese individuals (p < 0.025; n = 26; 17 women, 9 men); however, periA protein levels did riot differ. In addition, perilipin protein, but not mRNA, levels were higher in Sc adipose tissue from obese men than from women (p < 0.025). Discussion: Variations in perilipin expression may contribute to the higher basal lipolytic rates observed in obese compared to nonobese individuals and in obese women compared to obese men.

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

3.8
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