| Literature DB >> 25612068 |
Monica C Serra1, Alice S Ryan, John D Sorkin, Knachelle H Favor, Andrew P Goldberg.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether higher subcutaneous adipose tissue lipoprotein lipase activity (AT-LPLA) is associated with greater triglyceride (TG) storage in subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT), thereby reducing visceral adipose tissue (VAT) accumulation and metabolic dysfunction.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 25612068 PMCID: PMC4340730 DOI: 10.1002/oby.20998
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Obesity (Silver Spring) ISSN: 1930-7381 Impact factor: 5.002
Adipose tissue FCW and AT-LPLA by lowest and highest VAT/(TAF)
| Lowest VAT/TAF | Highest VAT/TAF | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.73±0.03 | 0.82±0.02 | 0.02 | |
| 0.76±0.03 | 0.81±0.03 | 0.22 | |
| 2.4±0.06 | 2.6±0.05 | 0.02 | |
| 2.5±0.06 | 2.6±0.06 | 0.23 | |
| 3.7±0.7 | 2.9±0.4 | 0.32 | |
| 5.7±0.9 | 3.7±0.7 | 0.09 | |
| 2.0±0.3 | 1.4±0.2 | 0.19 | |
| 3.0±0.4 | 2.0±0.5 | 0.16 |
Values are expressed as means±SEM.
Figure 1There is a significant linear relationship between abdominal fat cell weight (FCW) and adipose tissue-lipoprotein lipase activity (AT-LPLA) in women with low VAT/TAF (FCW=(0.14)(AT-LPLA)−0.46; r=0.63, P<0.01, Figure 1A (solid line)), but not in the high VAT/TAF group (FCW=(0.03)(AT-LPLA)−0.23; r=0.14, P=0.52, Figure 1B (dashed line)). The line in women with high VAT/TAF differed significantly from those with low VAT/TAF in y-intercept (P<0.01) and slope (P=0.05). The relationship of gluteal FCW to AT-LPLA was not significant in either the low (FCW=(0.06)(AT-LPLA)−0.38; r=0.29, P=0.18, Figure 1C) or high (FCW=(0.01)(AT-LPLA)−0.24; r=0.05, P=0.82, Figure 1D) VAT/TAF groups. The solid line represents a significant relationship, while the dashed lines represent non-significant relationships.
Physical characteristics of subjects with low and high VAT/TAF
| Low VAT/TAF (N=24) | High VAT/TAF (N=24) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 58±1 | 62±2 | 0.07 | |
| 30±1 | 33±1 | 0.02 | |
| 89±2 | 101±3 | <0.01 | |
| 46±1 | 47±1 | 0.31 | |
| 42±1 | 44±1 | 0.04 | |
| 459±19 | 421±17 | 0.08 | |
| 113±6 | 214±12 | <0.01 | |
| 0.20±0.01 | 0.34±0.01 | <0.01 | |
| 16.5±1.5 | 24.7±1.9 | <0.01 | |
| 122±3 | 126±2 | 0.25 | |
| 70±3 | 76±2 | 0.03 |
Values are expressed as means±SEM. SAT= subcutaneous abdominal adipose tissue; VAT= visceral abdominal adipose tissue; TAF=total abdominal fat (SAT+VAT); LDLT: low density lean tissue.
Metabolic measurements of subjects with low and high VAT/TAF
| Low VAT/TAF | High VAT/TAF | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fasting glucose (mmol/L) | 5.2±0.1 | 5.6±0.1 | <0.01 |
| 2h glucose (mmol/L) | 6.4±0.5 | 8.0±0.4 | <0.01 |
| HOMA-IR | 2.5±0.3 | 4.4±0.3 | <0.01 |
| Triglycerides (mmol/L) | 1.2±0.1 | 1.8±0.1 | <0.01 |
| Total Cholesterol (mmol/L) | 5.1±0.2 | 5.4±0.2 | 0.24 |
| LDL-C (mmol/L) | 3.1±0.1 | 3.4±0.2 | 0.35 |
| HDL-C (mmol/L) | 1.4±0.1 | 1.2±0.1 | <0.01 |
| HDL2-C (mmol/L) | 0.24±0.04 | 0.14±0.03 | 0.05 |
| HDL3-C (mmol/L) | 1.18±0.03 | 1.07±0.04 | <0.01 |
| IGT Prevalence (%) | 8 | 58 | <0.01 |
| MSyn Prevalence (%) | 8 | 83 | <0.01 |
Values are expressed as means±SEM.