Triglyceride content in comparison to GprPLOS A single | DOI:ten.1371journal.pone.0114942 December 26,13 GPR
Triglyceride content material in comparison with GprPLOS One particular | DOI:ten.1371journal.pone.0114942 December 26,13 Gpr120 Is not Required for n-3 PUFA Effects on Energy MetabolismTable 2. Absolute and relative tissue weights. Parameter\Genotype Physique weight (g) Lung (g) Rel. lung (mgg bw) Heart (g) Rel. Heart (mgg bw) Epi WAT (g) Rel. epi WAT (mgg bw) Retro WAT (g) Rel. retroWAT (mgg bw) BAT (g) Rel. BAT (mgg bw) Testis (g) Rel. Testis (mgg bw) Liver (g) Rel. liver (mgg bw) Kidney (g) Rel. Kidney (mgg bw) WT (n58) SAT HFD 53.50.12 0.17.00 three.11.04 0.19.01 three.58.11 1.69.14 31.81.09 0.59.03 11.00.62 0.54.04 10.08.67 0.22.00 4.03.11 4.33.34 80.21.09 0.43.02 8.03.28 WT (n58) PUFA HFD 43.83.05 0.18.01 4.31.29 0.17.01 4.03.17 1.91.23 42.72.48 0.55.07 12.38.63 0.49.07 10.76.14 0.22.01 5.29.43 two.19.22 49.60.57 0.42.02 9.84.50 Gpr120 KO (n57) SAT HFD 50.03.20 0.16.00 3.25.07 0.18.00 three.66.07 two.07.12 41.73.44 0.62.04 12.47.98 0.51.04 10.23.62 0.22.01 4.35.17 three.38.29 67.13.62 0.40.01 8.08.13 Gpr120 KO (n57) PUFA HFD 1-way ANOVA 43.90.08 0.18.01 four.11.07 0.18.01 4.12.13 two.27.14 51.54.98 0.70.03 16.08.57 0.40.04 8.95.65 0.22.01 five.11.27 1.84.07 42.20.02 0.47.03 10.75.38 p,0.05 NS p,0.05 NS p,0.05 NS p,0.05 NS p,0.05 NS NS NS p,0.05 p,0.05 p,0.05 NS p,0.Values are presented as group mean SEM. Statistical analysis performed by 1-way ANOVA followed by Students T-test comparing SAT HFD vs. PUFA HFD Star indicates substantial difference among mice fed SAT HFD vs. WT fed PUFA HFD. p,0.05; p,0.01; p,0.001. WAT; white adipose tissue, Epi; Epididymal, Retro; retroperitoneal, BAT; brown adipose tissue, bw; body weight. doi:10.1371journal.pone.0114942.tKO mice fed the SAT HFD (Fig. 7A). These findings had been supported by histopathological examination, which revealed that the PUFA HFD fed mice, no matter genotype, displayed a reduced degree of hepatic steatosis compared to CBP/p300 custom synthesis animals fed the SAT HFD. The steatosis was graded from 0 to 5 and mean steatosis grade was three.9.1 in WT and four.0.0 in Gpr120 KO mice on SAT HFD. On PUFA HFD, the steatosis grade was 1.6.4 in WT animals and 0.six.three in Gpr120 KO mice. Additionally, liver samples from PUFA HFD fed WT and Gpr120 KO mice showed conspicuous sinusoidal Kupffer cells andor possibly perisinusoidal Ito cells. These cells had a foamy appearance with markedly swollen and slightly basophilic cytoplasm, and they have been in some cases surrounded by inflammatory cells (Fig. 7B). Pancreases have been analyzed to decide the average islet area and macrophage content. Separate cohorts of chow fed WT and Gpr120 KO mice were also included to understand islet size and inflammation under typical dietary conditions. No significant difference was observed in islet area in between PUFA HFD fed and SAT HFD fed WT mice (Fig. 8A). However, the PUFA HFD fed WT mice displayed reduced numbers of macrophages per islet compared to the SAT HFD fed mice (PUFA HFD: two.09.45 cellsislet, SAT HFD: three.11.19; p50.05). Gpr120 KO mice fed PUFA HFD had considerably lower islet region andPLOS 1 | DOI:10.1371journal.pone.0114942 December 26,14 GPR120 Just isn’t Glycopeptide custom synthesis Essential for n-3 PUFA Effects on Energy MetabolismFig. 6. Adipose tissue histology. Representative slides of epididymal WAT double-stained for Perilipin and Mac2 (Macrophage 2 antigen, Galectin-3) from WT and Gpr120 KO mice fed either the SAT HFD or PUFA HFD as indicated. Perilipin staining is seen as study coloured lines surrounding the cells. Some cells, commonly linked with `crown like’ structures (CLS) don’t show perilipin staining.
