| Literature DB >> 18070349 |
Michael D Hayward1, Beverly K Jones, Arman Saparov, Heather S Hain, Anne-Cecile Trillat, Michelle M Bunzel, Aaron Corona, Bifang Li-Wang, Bryan Strenkowski, Caroline Giordano, Hai Shen, Emily Arcamone, Jeffrey Weidlick, Maria Vilensky, Marina Tugusheva, Roland H Felkner, William Campbell, Yu Rao, David S Grass, Olesia Buiakova.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) is implicated in a wide variety of pathological and physiological processes, including chronic inflammatory conditions, coronary artery disease, diabetes, obesity, and cachexia. Transgenic mice expressing human TNFalpha (hTNFalpha) have previously been described as a model for progressive rheumatoid arthritis. In this report, we describe extensive characterization of an hTNFalpha transgenic mouse line.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2007 PMID: 18070349 PMCID: PMC2222242 DOI: 10.1186/1472-6793-7-13
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Physiol ISSN: 1472-6793
List of bioassays used for characterization in the initial screen and result summary
| Cardiovascular, renal and bladder function | Bladder function (F) | NS |
| Blood pressure/heart rate (M) | ↑(BP)* | |
| Urine chemistry panel (F) | NS | |
| CNS and Behavior | Irwin test (M,F) | ↓*** |
| Cross-therapeutic assays | Automated blood chemistry panel (M) | NS |
| Body weight measurements (M,F) | NS | |
| Corticosterone (M) | ↑* | |
| Immunology and Inflammation | DTH (M) | NS |
| FACS analysis (M) | ↓* | |
| LPS challenge (M) | NS | |
| Monocyte infiltration (F) | ↑* | |
| Pulmonary inflammation (F) | NS | |
| Wound healing (F) | NS | |
| Metabolism and Body Composition | DEXA (F) | ↓* |
| Excised bone DEXA (F) | ↓** | |
| Food intake (M,F) | NS | |
| Food intake on HFD (M) | ↑*** | |
| Leptin (M,F) | ↓** | |
| Metabolic response to HFD (M) | ↑** | |
| Physical response to HFD (M) | ↓*** | |
| Selected muscle weight (F) | ↓** | |
| Pain | Formalin pain assay (M) | NS |
| Hot-plate assay (F) | NS | |
| Sexual health | Histopathology of reproductive system (M) | NS |
| Induced erection test (M) | ↓* | |
| Male contact sexual behavior (M) | ↓*** | |
| Male fertility (M) | ↓*** | |
| Testosterone (M) | NS | |
The highest levels of significance among all measures measured in the assay are shown by asterisks: * P < 0.05, ** 0.001 < P < 0.01, *** P < 0.001 and arrows indicate measurements in the TG line increased or decreased from WT. No significant difference between genotypes (NS), males (M), females (F), delayed-type hypersensitivity (DTH), fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS), lipopolysaccharide (LPS), Dual energy X-ray analysis (DEXA) high fat diet (HFD).
Age of mice and order of experiments
| 8 | LPS challenge | |
| 15 | Irwin | Body Weight (RC) |
| 16 | Food Intake | Body Weight (RC) |
| 17 | Male Fertility | Body Weight (RC) |
| 18 | Male Sexual Behavior | Body Weight (RC) |
| 19 | Male Sexual Behavior | Body Weight (RC) |
| 20 | Male Sexual Behavior Insulin | Body Weight (RC) |
| 21 | OGTT (pre-HFD) | Body Weight (RC) |
| 22 | DEXA(pre-HFD & Low Ca) | Body Weight (RC) |
| 23 | HFD Begins | Body Weight (RC) |
| Body Weight (HFD) | ||
| 24 | Leptin | Body Weight (RC) |
| Body Weight (HFD) | ||
| 25 | Body Weight (RC) | |
| Body Weight (HFD) | ||
| 26 | Body Weight (RC) | |
| Body Weight (HFD) | ||
| 27 | MicroCT OGTT (post-HFD) | Body Weight (RC) |
| Insulin DEXA(post-Low Ca) | Body Weight (HFD) | |
| 28 | DEXA (post HFD) | Body Weight (RC) |
| CLAMS | Body Weight (HFD) | |
| 29 | Insulin Tolerance Test |
Phenotypes in the Irwin observational panel
| Body weight (g) | WT | 31.5 ± 18.8 | 20.3 ± 0.9 |
| TG | 25.5 ± 1.7* | 22.2 ± 0.9 | |
| Body length (mm) | WT | 92.8 ± 0.9 | 86.6 ± 0.5 |
| TG | 89.4 ± 1.0* | 87.8 ± 1.1 | |
| Grip strength (score 0–4) | WT | 2.4 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0 |
| TG | 0.8 ± 0.2** | 1.6 ± 0.2 | |
| Wire maneuver (score 0–4) | WT | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 2.8 ± 0.5 |
| TG | 4.0 ± 0*** | 2.0 ± 0.6 | |
| Tail elevation (score 0–2) | WT | 2.0 ± 0 | 1.4 ± 0.2 |
| TG | 1.2 ± 0.2* | 1.2 ± 0.2 |
Values represent the mean ± SEM n = 5 mice for each sex/genotype combination. The level of significance is shown by asterisks: * P < 0.05, ** 0.001
Figure 1Serum TNFα Levels After IP LPS Challenge. LPS did not significantly alter expression of the transgene but dose-dependently increased endogenous TNFα in WT and TG mice similarly. WT (open bars) and TG mice (closed bars) were injected with the indicated doses of LPS (μg/mouse) as shown on the X-axis. (A) Human and (B) mouse TNFα levels were measured using ELISA assays. Data are presented as means ± SEM, n = 5 for each genotype and dose combination. ND – non-detectable.
Figure 2Body Weights. TG males were significantly lighter than WT males and the weight of TG females did not increase over time like WT females (A) Weights of male WT (open squares n = 4) and TG (black triangles n = 4) mice between 15 and 26 weeks of age. (B) Weights of female WT (open squares n = 6) and TG (black triangles n = 6) mice between 15 and 28 weeks of age. Results represent the mean ± SEM. The level of significance is shown by asterisks: * P < 0.05, ** 0.001
Soft tissue composition and body weight
| Tissue area | WT | 22.99 ± 0.30 (n = 7) | 27.34 ± 0.59 (n = 8) | 31.70 ± 0.67 (n = 8) |
| TG | 21.96 ± 0.51 (n = 5) | 24.66 ± 0.33**(n = 7) | 24.87 ± 0.49*** (n = 5) | |
| Total tissue mass | WT | 22.18 ± 0.57 | 32.00 ± 1.22 | 40.46 ± 1.48 |
| TG | 20.92 ± 0.69 | 26.09 ± 0.53** | 26.63 ± 0.97*** | |
| Fat mass | WT | 2.47 ± 0.22 | 6.37 ± 0.8 | 15.33 ± 1.05 |
| TG | 1.97 ± 0.12 | 3.20 ± 0.26** | 5.45 ± 0.68*** | |
| Lean mass | WT | 19.71 ± 0.36 | 25.63 ± 0.59 | 25.13 ± 0.47 |
| TG | 18.95 ± 0.57 | 22.89 ± 0.35** | 21.81 ± 0.35*** | |
| % fat | WT | 11.15 ± 0.72 | 19.53 ± 1.67 | 37.57 ± 1.37 |
| TG | 9.39 ± 0.28 | 12.20 ± 0.82** | 20.08 ± 1.91*** | |
| % lean | WT | 88.85 ± 0.72 | 80.47 ± 1.67 | 62.43 ± 1.37 |
| TG | 90.61 ± 0.28 | 87.80 ± 0.82** | 79.92 ± 1.91*** | |
| Body weight | WT | 24.16 ± 1.02 | 32.19 ± 1.15 | 40.17 ± 1.46 |
| TG | 22.01 ± 0.75 | 26.46 ± 0.50** | 26.72 ± 0.91*** | |
Values represent the mean ± SEM. RC is regular chow and HFD is high fat diet. The level of significance is shown by asterisks: * P < 0.05, ** 0.001
Figure 3Weight Gain in Response to a HFD. TG males failed to increase body weight on a HFD. Weekly body weight measurements for WT (open squares n = 8) and TG (closed triangles n = 8) males taken over the course of five weeks on the HFD. Results represent the mean ± SEM. The level of significance is shown by asterisks: * P < 0.05, ** 0.001
Figure 4MicroCT Analysis of Regional Adipose Distribution. TG males failed to increase regional fat depot volumes following a HFD. (A) The amount of fat in cubic millimeters quantitated by microCT analysis and normalized by body weight is shown for WT males by open bars and TG males by closed bars. The individual depots are shown below the X-axis. (B) The percent of fat distributed in each adipose depot relative to total adipose tissue quantitated by microCT is shown for WT males by open bars and TG males by closed bars. The individual depots are shown below the X-axis. Results represent the mean ± SEM, WT n = 6 and TG n = 7. t indicates P < 0.10, * P < 0.05, ** 0.001
Figure 5Glucose Disposal, Insulin Levels and Insulin Sensitivity. TG mice failed to develop insulin resistance on a HFD. In A, B, and D, WT data is shown as open squares and TG data by closed triangles. (A) OGTT performed on fasted males prior to the start of the HFD showed no significant difference between genotypes (WT n = 7 and TG n = 8). (B) OGTT performed on fasted males following the HFD challenge showed decreased glucose excursion by TG mice (WT n = 7 and TG n = 5). (C) Serum insulin levels in fasted males measured from samples acquired pre and post HFD challenge, WT values are shown by open bars (n = 8) and TG by closed bars (n = 7). (D) Results from the insulin tolerance test performed after the HFD challenge. Insulin levels increased in response to 2 weeks of HFD challenge in WT (n = 7) but not TG (n = 5) mice. All results represent the mean ± SEM. * indicates P < 0.05, ** indicates P < 0.01 and *** indicates P < 0.001 in post-hoc analysis.
Metabolic measures and activity measured in the CLAMS
| Oxygen consumption ml/kg/hr | 2989 ± 93 | 3823 ± 110 | 128*** | 2770 ± 106 | 3454 ± 197 | 125** |
| Carbon dioxide production ml/kg/hr | 2336 ± 114 | 2932 ± 124 | 124** | 2510 ± 160 | 2985 ± 220 | 118* |
| Heat production Kcal/g | 0.014 ± 0.001 | 0.018 ± 0.001 | 127*** | 0.014 ± 0.001 | 0.017 ± 0.001 | 123** |
| Respiratory exchange ratio | 0.789 ± 0.015 | 0.764 ± 0.016 | 97 | 0.902 ± 0.036 | 0.856 ± 0.025 | 95 |
| Ambulatory activity beam breaks/hr | 1220 ± 65 | 458 ± 102 | 36** | 1839 ± 283 | 448 ± 72 | 25*** |
| Vertical activity beam breaks/hr | 2124 ± 91 | 468 ± 133 | 21*** | 2550 ± 289 | 603 ± 166 | 22*** |
Values represent the mean ± SEM. The level of significance is shown by asterisks: * P < 0.05, ** 0.001
mice
expressed as percent of the measures from the WT group.
Figure 6Response to Dietary Calcium Restriction. TG females were more susceptible to bone loss in response to dietary calcium restriction. Female mice were analyzed using DEXA prior to and following dietary calcium restriction for 4 weeks. The percent change from baseline for (A) Bone mineral density, (B) Bone mineral content, and (C) Bone area is shown. WT values are shown by open bars (n = 7) and TG (n = 8) by closed bars. Values represent the mean ± SEM. The level of significance is shown by asterisks: * P < 0.05, ** 0.001
Number of hTNFα and WT mice performing male sexual behaviors
| Mounting Behavior | 7 | 5 | 12 | 0 | 0.012 |
| Intromission | 2 | 10 | 9 | 3 | 0.041 |
| Induced erection (1) | 7 | 8 | 14 | 1 | 0.005 |
| Induced erection (2) | 9 | 3 | 12 | 0 | 0.064 |
| Sired pregnancies | 4 | 8 | 9 | 3 | 0.041 |