AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Metabolic disorders are commonly investigated using knockout and transgenic mouse models. A variety of mouse strains have been used for this purpose. However, mouse strains can differ in their inherent propensities to develop metabolic disease, which may affect the experimental outcomes of metabolic studies. We have investigated strain-dependent differences in the susceptibility to diet-induced obesity and insulin resistance in five commonly used inbred mouse strains (C57BL/6J, 129X1/SvJ, BALB/c, DBA/2 and FVB/N). METHODS: Mice were fed either a low-fat or a high-fat diet (HFD) for 8 weeks. Whole-body energy expenditure and body composition were then determined. Tissues were used to measure markers of mitochondrial metabolism, inflammation, oxidative stress and lipid accumulation. RESULTS: BL6, 129X1, DBA/2 and FVB/N mice were all susceptible to varying degrees to HFD-induced obesity, glucose intolerance and insulin resistance, but BALB/c mice exhibited some protection from these detrimental effects. This protection could not be explained by differences in mitochondrial metabolism or oxidative stress in liver or muscle, or inflammation in adipose tissue. Interestingly, in contrast with the other strains, BALB/c mice did not accumulate excess lipid (triacylglycerols and diacylglycerols) in the liver; this is potentially related to lower fatty acid uptake rather than differences in lipogenesis or lipid oxidation. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Collectively, our findings indicate that most mouse strains develop metabolic defects on an HFD. However, there are inherent differences between strains, and thus the genetic background needs to be considered carefully in metabolic studies.
AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Metabolic disorders are commonly investigated using knockout and transgenic mouse models. A variety of mouse strains have been used for this purpose. However, mouse strains can differ in their inherent propensities to develop metabolic disease, which may affect the experimental outcomes of metabolic studies. We have investigated strain-dependent differences in the susceptibility to diet-induced obesity and insulin resistance in five commonly used inbred mouse strains (C57BL/6J, 129X1/SvJ, BALB/c, DBA/2 and FVB/N). METHODS:Mice were fed either a low-fat or a high-fat diet (HFD) for 8 weeks. Whole-body energy expenditure and body composition were then determined. Tissues were used to measure markers of mitochondrial metabolism, inflammation, oxidative stress and lipid accumulation. RESULTS: BL6, 129X1, DBA/2 and FVB/N mice were all susceptible to varying degrees to HFD-induced obesity, glucose intolerance and insulin resistance, but BALB/c mice exhibited some protection from these detrimental effects. This protection could not be explained by differences in mitochondrial metabolism or oxidative stress in liver or muscle, or inflammation in adipose tissue. Interestingly, in contrast with the other strains, BALB/c mice did not accumulate excess lipid (triacylglycerols and diacylglycerols) in the liver; this is potentially related to lower fatty acid uptake rather than differences in lipogenesis or lipid oxidation. CONCLUSIONS/ INTERPRETATION: Collectively, our findings indicate that most mouse strains develop metabolic defects on an HFD. However, there are inherent differences between strains, and thus the genetic background needs to be considered carefully in metabolic studies.
Authors: Marc-Emmanuel Dumas; Richard H Barton; Ayo Toye; Olivier Cloarec; Christine Blancher; Alice Rothwell; Jane Fearnside; Roger Tatoud; Véronique Blanc; John C Lindon; Steve C Mitchell; Elaine Holmes; Mark I McCarthy; James Scott; Dominique Gauguier; Jeremy K Nicholson Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2006-08-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Ji-Ming Ye; Miguel A Iglesias; David G Watson; Bronwyn Ellis; Leonie Wood; Per Bo Jensen; Rikke Veggerby Sørensen; Philip Just Larsen; Gregory J Cooney; Karsten Wassermann; Edward W Kraegen Journal: Am J Physiol Endocrinol Metab Date: 2003-03 Impact factor: 4.310
Authors: Nigel Turner; Krit Hariharan; Jennifer TidAng; Georgia Frangioudakis; Susan M Beale; Lauren E Wright; Xiao Yi Zeng; Simon J Leslie; Jing-Ya Li; Edward W Kraegen; Gregory J Cooney; Ji-Ming Ye Journal: Diabetes Date: 2009-08-31 Impact factor: 9.461
Authors: Jane F Fearnside; Marc-Emmanuel Dumas; Alice R Rothwell; Steven P Wilder; Olivier Cloarec; Ayo Toye; Christine Blancher; Elaine Holmes; Roger Tatoud; Richard H Barton; James Scott; Jeremy K Nicholson; Dominique Gauguier Journal: PLoS One Date: 2008-02-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wen C Aw; Samuel G Towarnicki; Richard G Melvin; Neil A Youngson; Michael R Garvin; Yifang Hu; Shaun Nielsen; Torsten Thomas; Russell Pickford; Sonia Bustamante; Antón Vila-Sanjurjo; Gordon K Smyth; J William O Ballard Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2018-11-06 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: F M C Silva; E E Oliveira; A C C Gouveia; A S S Brugiolo; C C Alves; J O A Correa; J Gameiro; J Mattes; H C Teixeira; A P Ferreira Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2017-03-31 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Daniela F Quail; Oakley C Olson; Priya Bhardwaj; Logan A Walsh; Leila Akkari; Marsha L Quick; I-Chun Chen; Nils Wendel; Nir Ben-Chetrit; Jeanne Walker; Peter R Holt; Andrew J Dannenberg; Johanna A Joyce Journal: Nat Cell Biol Date: 2017-07-24 Impact factor: 28.824
Authors: Yuling Chi; Dou Yeon Youn; Alus M Xiaoli; Li Liu; Jacob B Pessin; Fajun Yang; Jeffrey E Pessin Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 2020-02-19 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Maya Styner; Gabriel M Pagnotti; Cody McGrath; Xin Wu; Buer Sen; Gunes Uzer; Zhihui Xie; Xiaopeng Zong; Martin A Styner; Clinton T Rubin; Janet Rubin Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Allen M Andres; Joel A Kooren; Sarah J Parker; Kyle C Tucker; Nandini Ravindran; Bruce R Ito; Chengqun Huang; Vidya Venkatraman; Jennifer E Van Eyk; Roberta A Gottlieb; Robert M Mentzer Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 4.733