| Literature DB >> 22201701 |
Maaike H Oosterveer1, Anniek H Koolman1,2, Pieter T de Boer1, Trijnie Bos3, Aycha Bleeker1, Theo H van Dijk3, Vincent W Bloks1, Folkert Kuipers1,3, Pieter Jj Sauer1, Gertjan van Dijk2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Overactivity and/or dysregulation of the endocannabinoid system (ECS) contribute to development of obesity. In vitro studies indicate a regulatory role for the cannabinoid receptor 1 (CB1) in adipocyte function and CB1-receptor deficient (CB1-/-) mice are resistant to high fat diet-induced obesity. Whether this phenotype of CB1-/- mice is related to altered fat metabolism in adipose tissue is unknown.Entities:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22201701 PMCID: PMC3307495 DOI: 10.1186/1743-7075-8-93
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nutr Metab (Lond) ISSN: 1743-7075 Impact factor: 4.169
Figure 1Body weight, fat mass and energy balance in . A, Body weight development during the dietary intervention. B, Total fat mass at the end of the dietary intervention. C, Caloric intake, determined by manual food weighing, and averaged over the third to fifth week of dietary intervention. D, Fecal energy loss and E, Energy expenditure, derived from indirect calorimetry. Open symbols/bars, CBmice; closed symbols/bars, CBmice. Values are given as means ± SEM for n = 5-13; # p < 0.05 compared to chow group of the same genotype; $ p < 0.05 compared to HF group of the same genotype, * p < 0.05 CB. CB(Student t-test). General linear model analysis revealed overall effects for the following parameters (p < 0.05): Genotype: body weight at every timepoint, total fat mass, 24 h-energy expenditure. Chow versus HF: total fat mass, caloric intake, 24 h-energy expenditure. Chow versus HF/FO: total fat mass, caloric intake, fecal energy loss. HF versus HF/FO: caloric intake, fecal energy loss.
Body composition and plasma metabolite concentrations in CBand CBmice fed chow, a HF or a HF/FO diet during 6 weeks
| chow | HF | HF/FO | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Subcutaneous fat (g) | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.7 ± 0.0 | 2.1 ± 0.3# | 1.1 ± 0.1#* | 2.5 ± 0.4# | 1.4 ± 0.1#* |
| Epididymal fat (mg) | 319 ± 40 | 227 ± 19 | 716 ± 113# | 361 ± 34#* | 644 ± 85# | 406 ± 64#* |
| Retroperitoneal fat (mg) | 116 ± 17 | 66 ± 6* | 217 ± 33# | 108 ± 7#* | 300 ± 54# | 145 ± 19#* |
| Brown fat (mg) | 45 ± 6 | 41 ± 5 | 47 ± 6 | 36 ± 3 | 52 ± 5 | 36 ± 5 |
| Mesenteric fat (mg) | 194 ± 18 | 148 ± 12 | 303 ± 36# | 181 ± 11* | 336 ± 47# | 190 ± 14* |
| Muscular fat (g) | 0.6 ± 0.0 | 0.5 ± 0.0* | 1.0 ± 0.1# | 0.7 ± 0.0#* | 1.1 ± 0.1# | 0.8 ± 0.0#* |
| Organ fat (mg) | 113 ± 15 | 103 ± 14 | 176 ± 28 | 161 ± 15# | 238 ± 30# | 133 ± 14* |
| Lean mass (g) | 5.2 ± 0.6 | 4.6 ± 0.1* | 5.0 ± 0.1 | 4.7 ± 0.1 | 5.0 ± 0.1 | 4.7 ± 0.1 |
| Triglycerides (μM) | 333 ± 31 | 245 ± 31 | 277 ± 29 | 275 ± 33 | 240 ± 63 | 183 ± 19 |
| Cholesterol (mM) | 1.3 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.9 ± 0.1# | 1.8 ± 0.1# | 1.4 ± 0.1$ | 1.3 ± 0.1#$ |
| Non-esterified fatty acids (μM) | 607 ± 32 | 391 ± 34* | 586 ± 40 | 588 ± 51# | 464 ± 38# | 372 ± 26$ |
| Blood glucose (mM) | 9.3 ± 0.5 | 7.7 ± 0.8 | 9.1 ± 0.3 | 7.4 ± 0.4* | 9.0 ± 0.4 | 8.1 ± 0.3 |
| Insulin (pg/mL) | 334 ± 53 | 356 ± 86 | 325 ± 39 | 270 ± 64 | 371 ± 82 | 300 ± 84 |
| Leptin (ng/mL) | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1$ | 2.1 ± 0.5#* | 1.0 ± 0.2#* | 2.2 ± 0.5# | 1.7 ± 0.3# |
| Adiponectin (μg/mL) | 14.3 ± 1.3 | 18.5 ± 2.4 | 15.4 ± 1.5 | 17.0 ± 2.9 | 18.1 ± 2.2 | 19.1 ± 2.2 |
| Resistin (ng/mL) | 2.3 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.4 | 3.0 ± 0.5 | 2.9 ± 0.3 | 2.1 ± 0.2 | 2.6 ± 0.4 |
Values are given as means ± SEM for n = 6-8; # p < 0.05 compared to chow group of the same genotype; $ p < 0.05 compared to HF group of the same genotype, * p < 0.05 CB. CB(Student t-test).
General linear model analysis revealed overall effects for the following parameters (p < 0.05):
Genotype: subcutaneous/epidydimal/retroperitoneal/brown/mesenteric/muscular/organ fat mass, lean mass, non-esterified fatty acid levels, glucose levels.
Chow versus HF: subcutaneous/epididymal/retroperitoneal/mesenteric/muscular/organ fat mass, leptin levels.
Chow versus HF/FO: subcutaneous/epididymal/retroperitoneal/mesenteric/muscular/organ fat mass, cholesterol levels, leptin levels.
HF versus HF/FO: non-esterified fatty acid levels.
Interaction between genotype and diet: non-esterified fatty acid levels.
Figure 2Fat cell area in . A, Representative pictures of 3 μm paraffin hematoxylin and eosin-stained sections (1 cm = 100 μm) and B, percent relative cumulative frequency (PCRF) curves of 240-420 fat cell areas from adipose tissue sections. Inset: EC50 values of the PCRF curves and their 95%-confidence intervals. Open symbols, CBmice; closed symbols, CBmice. # p < 0.05 compared to chow group of the same genotype; $ p < 0.05 compared to HF group of the same genotype, * p < 0.05 CB. CB(p < 0.05 in case of no overlap between EC50 95%-confidence intervals).
Adipose tissue gene expression levels in CBand CBmice fed chow, a HF or a HF/FO diet during 6 weeks
| chow | HF | HF/FO | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CB1 (Cnr1) | 1.0 ± 0.1 | ND | 1.0 ± 0.1 | ND | 1.1 ± 0.2 | ND |
| Napepld | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.1# | 1.3 ± 0.2# | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 |
| Faah | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 1.8 ± 0.5 | 1.1 ± 0.6 | 1.1 ± 0.4 | 1.0 ± 0.5 | 1.3 ± 0.6 |
| Pparγ2 (Pparg) | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.3 | 1.0 ± 0.1$ | 0.9 ± 0.1 |
| C/ebpα (Cebpa) | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.0 | 1.3 ± 0.3 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 |
| Ap2 (Fabp4) | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.0# | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 |
| Adiponectin (Adipoq) | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 |
| Srebp-1c (Srebf1) | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.1# | 1.8 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.0$ | 1.1 ± 0.0 |
| Acc1 (Acaca) | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.3 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.3 | 0.6 ± 0.1$ | 0.5 ± 0.1# |
| Fas (Fasn) | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.1$ | 0.4 ± 0.0# |
| Scd1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 2.8 ± 0.1# | 3.1 ± 0.7# | 0.9 ± 0.1$ | 1.1 ± 0.1$ |
| Pepck (Pck1) | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.4 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 |
| Cd36 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.0 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.1 |
| Fatp4 (Slc27a4) | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.0 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 |
| Lpl | 1.0 ± 0.3 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.2 | 1.4 ± 0.2 | 1.0 ± 0.1 |
| Gpihbp1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.0 |
| Angptl3 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 0.9 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.0 |
| Angptl4 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.5 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 |
| Apoc1 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.0 | 1.1 ± 0.0 | 0.7 ± 0.1$ | 0.9 ± 0.1 |
| Apoc3 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 0.7 ± 0.1 | 0.6 ± 0.1 | 0.4 ± 0.0 | 0.2 ± 0.0$ | 0.2 ± 0.0# |
| Cd68 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.0 | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.1 |
| Hsl (Lipe) | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.1 ± 0.1 |
| Atgl (Pnpla2) | 1.0 ± 0.2 | 1.1 ± 0.2 | 1.5 ± 0.2 | 1.4 ± 0.4 | 1.2 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.2 |
| Cpt1a | 1.0 ± 0.1 | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 1.6 ± 0.2# | 1.2 ± 0.2 | 1.3 ± 0.1# | 1.1 ± 0.1 |
Expression levels were normalized to cyclophilin expression and values are given as means ± SEM for n = 4-8; # p < 0.05 compared to chow group of the same genotype, $ p < 0.05 compared to HF group of the same genotype (Student t-test). ND, non-detectable.
General linear model analysis revealed overall effects for the following parameters (p < 0.05):
Chow versus HF: aP2, Scd1, Srebp-1c.
Chow versus HF/FO: Fas.
HF versus HF/FO: Fas, Scd1, Srebp-1c.
Figure 3Fractional fatty acid synthesis rates and lipolytic activities in . A, Acetyl-CoA precursor pool enrichment. B, De novo palmitate synthesis. C De novo stearate synthesis. D, De novo oleate synthesis. E, Stearate synthesis from pre-existing palmitate. F, Oleate synthesis from pre-existing palmitate. G, Post-heparin plasma LPL activity and H, Adipose tissue-derived LPL activity normalized for protein content. Open bars, CBmice; closed bars, CBmice. Values are given as means ± SEM for n = 4-7; # p < 0.05 compared to chow group of the same genotype; $ p < 0.05 compared to HF group of the same genotype (Student t-test). General linear model analysis revealed overall effects for the following parameters (p < 0.05): Chow versus HF: acetyl-CoA pool enrichment, de novo palmitate/stearate/oleate synthesis. Chow versus HF/FO: de novo palmitate/stearate synthesis. HF versus HF/FO: acetyl-CoA pool enrichment, de novo stearate/oleate synthesis.