4.6 Article

Heterogeneous metabolic adaptation of C57BL/6J mice to high-fat diet

出版社

AMER PHYSIOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1152/ajpendo.00332.2001

关键词

glucose transport; insulin resistance; diabetes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

C57BL/6J mice were fed a high-fat, carbohydrate-free diet (HFD) for 9 mo. Approximately 50% of the mice became obese and diabetic (ObD), similar to10% lean and diabetic (LD), similar to10% lean and nondiabetic (LnD), and similar to30% displayed intermediate phenotype. All of the HFD mice were insulin resistant. In the fasted state, whole body glucose clearance was reduced in ObD mice, unchanged in the LD mice, and increased in the LnD mice compared with the normal-chow mice. Because fasted ObD mice were hyperinsulinemic and the lean mice slightly insulinopenic, there was no correlation between insulin levels and increased glucose utilization. In vivo, tissue glucose uptake assessed by 2-[C-14] deoxyglucose accumulation was reduced in most muscles in the ObD mice but increased in the LnD mice compared with the values of the control mice. In the LD mice, the glucose uptake rates were reduced in extensor digitorum longus (EDL) and total hindlimb but increased in soleus, diaphragm, and heart. When assessed in vitro, glucose utilization rates in the absence and presence of insulin were similar in diaphragm, soleus, and EDL muscles isolated from all groups of mice. Thus, in genetically homogenous mice, HFD feeding lead to different metabolic adaptations. Whereas all of the mice became insulin resistant, this was associated, in obese mice, with decreased glucose clearance and hyperinsulinemia and, in lean mice, with increased glucose clearance in the presence of mild insulinopenia. Therefore, increased glucose clearance in lean mice could not be explained by increased insulin level, indicating that other in vivo mechanisms are triggered to control muscle glucose utilization. These adaptive mechanisms could participate in the protection against development of obesity.

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