已经提供了评估能量平衡的详细方案和建议,以解决与肥胖研究中小鼠模型明显的不同体重和身体组成相关的问题。这里,我们应用这些指南研究了两种近交小鼠品系的能量平衡,它们对饮食诱导的肥胖(DIO)具有不同的敏感性.AKR/J菌株的小鼠高度易感,而SWR/J小鼠几乎完全耐药。仅部分理解了造成这种惊人表型差异的最接近机制。
身体质量和身体成分,代谢能,能量消耗(EE),首先在一组接受低脂对照饮食(CD)喂养的雄性AKR/J(N=29)和SWR/J(N=30)小鼠中评估了体温和自发体力活动行为,以确定代谢适应性,从而确定对DIO的抵抗.此后,研究了高脂饮食(HFD)喂养3天的即时代谢反应.从初始组群中选择重量匹配的AKR/J(N=8)和SWR/J(N=8)小鼠组用于该干预。
体质量的应变差异,根据体重调整脂肪量和瘦体重,因为这是与代谢能和EE显着相关的唯一协变量。在CD上,SWR/J小鼠的EE和脂肪氧化高于AKR/J小鼠,而代谢能量没有发现差异。响应HFD进料,这两种菌株都增加了代谢能的摄入,但也增加了EE,体温,和脂肪氧化。对HFD喂养的分解代谢适应与正能量平衡的发展相反。EE的增加不是由于自发体力活动的增加。当平衡代谢能和每日能量消耗(DEE)时,发现了显着的应变差异。
该指南适用,但有一些与身体成分差异调整相关的局限性。代谢表型揭示了代谢能,DEE和代谢燃料选择都有助于DIO的发展。因此,评估双方的能量平衡方程是必不可少的,以确定最接近的机制。
Detailed protocols and recommendations for the assessment of energy balance have been provided to address the problems associated with different body mass and body composition as apparent for mouse models in obesity research. Here, we applied these guidelines to investigate energy balance in two inbred mouse strains with contrasting susceptibilities for diet-induced obesity (DIO). Mice of the AKR/J strain are highly susceptible, whereas the SWR/J mice are almost completely resistant. The proximate mechanisms responsible for this striking phenotypic difference are only partially understood.
Body mass and body composition, metabolizable energy, energy expenditure (EE), body temperature and spontaneous physical activity behavior were first assessed in a cohort of male AKR/J (N=29) and SWR/J (N=30) mice fed on a low-fat control diet (CD) to identify metabolic adaptations determining resistance to DIO. Thereafter, the immediate metabolic responses to high-fat diet (HFD) feeding for 3 days were investigated. Groups of weight-matched AKR/J (N=8) and SWR/J (N=8) mice were selected from the initial cohort for this intervention.
Strain differences in body mass, fat mass and lean mass were adjusted by body mass as this was the only covariate significantly correlated with metabolizable energy and EE. On the CD, EE and fat oxidation was higher in SWR/J than in AKR/J mice, whereas no difference was found for metabolizable energy. In response to HFD feeding, both strains increased metabolizable energy intake, but also increased EE, body temperature, and fat oxidation. The catabolic adaptations to HFD feeding opposed the development of positive energy balance. Increased EE was not due to increased spontaneous physical activity. A significant strain difference was found when balancing metabolizable energy and daily energy expenditure (DEE).
The guidelines were applicable with some limitations related to the adjustment of differences in body composition. Metabolic phenotyping revealed that metabolizable energy, DEE and metabolic fuel selection all contribute to the development of DIO. Therefore, assessing both sides of the energy balance equation is essential to identify the proximate mechanisms.