| Literature DB >> 28840471 |
Dominika Stygar1, Tomasz Sawczyn2, Bronisława Skrzep-Poloczek2, Aleksander J Owczarek3, Natalia Matysiak4, Marek Michalski4, Łukasz Mielańczyk4, Barbara Bażanów5, Paweł Ziora2, Piotr Choręza3, Bogdan Doleżych6, Konrad Wojciech Karcz7.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite excellent results of bariatric surgery in the treatment of type 2 diabetes and weight loss in human subjects, some patients do not obtain desired results. One of the reasons for this is that not all patients follow caloric intake recommendations. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of duodenojejunal omega switch (DJOS) surgery on body weight, glucose tolerance, and incretins in rats.Entities:
Keywords: Bariatric surgery; DJOS surgery; Experimental rat model; GIP; GLP-1; Glucose tolerance; Incretins; Insulin intolerance; OGTT; Obesity
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 28840471 PMCID: PMC5803292 DOI: 10.1007/s11695-017-2883-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Obes Surg ISSN: 0960-8923 Impact factor: 4.129
Fig. 1a Schematic illustration of DJOS and b SHAM surgery, respectively. c Scheme of experimental groups
Fig. 2a Glucose profiles of OGGT in four groups of diet, according to the operation type. Ninety-five percent confidence interval (95% CI) as calculated from Student’s t test. b AUC of glucose profiles of OGGT in four groups of diet, according to the operation type. 95% CI as calculated from Student’s t test. c Mean values of HOMA-IR in four groups of diet, according to the operation type. 95% CI as calculated from Student’s t test. d Mean values of delta insulin in four groups of diet, according to the operation type. 95% CI as calculated from Student’s t test
Descriptive statistics and results of two-way analysis of variance
| DJOS | SHAM |
| |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HF/HF | HF/CD | CD/HF | CD/CD | HF/HF | HF/CD | CD/HF | CD/CD | Group | Op. | Int. | |
| GLP-1 (pg/mL) | 43.8 ± 4.4 | 24.5 ± 4.8 | 25.0 ± 8.4 | 28.5 ± 5.0 | 20.5 ± 6.2 | 30.4 ± 2.2 | 36.4 ± 11.8 | 26.3 ± 8.3 | 0.338 | 0.288 |
|
| Eq (kcal) | 98.5 ± 22.3 | 84.1 ± 16.9 | 148.9 ± 10.9 | 87.1 ± 15.5 | 110.3 ± 33.1 | 80.2 ± 21.6 | 113.9 ± 24.2 | 90.8 ± 12.9 | 0.327 |
|
|
| ΔGIP (pg/mL) | 35.8 ± 42.7 | 26.5 ± 79.0 | − 46.8 ± 62.8 | − 8.6 ± 60.7 | 107.2 ± 66.0 | 45.9 ± 58.9 | 33.9 ± 79.3 | − 79.9 ± 84.4 | 0.197 |
|
|
| ΔGLP-1 (pmol/L) | 13.8 ± 9.1 | 26.2 ± 8.5 | 25.3 ± 10.6 | 36.6 ± 13.9 | − 32.3 ± 13.9 | 14.0 ± 5.34 | 8.0 ± 9.4 | 12.8 ± 8.7 |
|
|
|
| ΔINS (uIU/mL) | 25.0 ± 14.6 | 28.0 ± 6.6 | 12.7 ± 11.8 | 36.4 ± 10.8 | 27.7 ± 2.1 | 22.9 ± 8.7 | 25.7 ± 8.2 | 23.2 ± 10.8 | 0.855 | 0.104 |
|
| HOMA-IR | 8.0 ± 2.5 | 9.2 ± .0 | 8.5 ± 4.0 | 7.1 ± 1.3 | 8.5 ± 1.8 | 7.2 ± 1.7 | 11.1 ± 4.6 | 9.7 ± 2.2 | 0.260 | 0.484 | 0.163 |
Mean values ± standard deviation or median (lower–upper quartile). The numbers in italics is the statistical significance (p<0.05)
Op. operation type. Int. interaction between group and operation type
Fig. 3a Mean values of glucagon-like peptide 1 in four groups of diet, according to the operation type. 95% CI as calculated from Student’s t test. b Mean values of delta glucagon-like peptide 1 in four groups of diet, according to the operation type. 95% CI as calculated from Student’s t test. c Mean values of delta gastric inhibitory polypeptide in four groups of diet, according to the operation type. 95% CI as calculated from Student’s t test. d Weight profiles in four groups of diet, according to the operation type. 95% CI as calculated from Student’s t test. e Mean values of Eq in four groups of diet, according to the operation type. 95% CI as calculated from Student’s t test
Results of multiple comparisons in contrast analysis
| Post hoc | DJOS vs. SHAM | DJOS | SHAM | |||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. HF/HF | 2. HF/CD | 3. CD/HF | 4. CD/CD | 1 vs. 2 | 1 vs. 3 | 1 vs. 4 | 2 vs. 3 | 2 vs. 4 | 3 vs. 4 | 1 vs. 2 | 1 vs. 3 | 1 vs. 4 | 2 vs. 3 | 2 vs. 4 | 3 vs. 4 | |
| INS |
| 0.471 |
| 0.212 |
|
|
| 0.729 | 0.069 | 0.137 |
|
|
| 0.364 | 0.150 |
|
| Eq | 0.317 | 0.762 |
| 0.748 | 0.238 |
| 0.351 |
| 0.801 |
|
| 0.753 | 0.078 |
| 0.381 |
|
| ΔGIP | 0.058 | 0.643 |
| 0.061 | 0.809 |
| 0.252 | 0.072 | 0.381 |
| 0.135 |
|
| 0.766 |
|
|
| ΔGLP-1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 0.880 | < 0.05 |
|
|
|
| 0.830 | 0.844 | 0.375 |
| HOMA-IR |
| 0.068 |
| 0.310 | 0.858 | 0.639 |
| 0.510 |
|
| 0.502 | 0.437 | 0.510 | 0.589 | 0.938 | 0.796 |
Fig. 4a–d Electron micrographs of rat liver (HJ/DJOS/HF group) showing hepatocytes with euchromatic nucleus (N) of regular outline and prominent nucleolus. The cytoplasm contains round and oval mitochondria (M), multiple arrays of rough endoplasmic reticulum (rER), glycogen (G), multiple peroxisomes (P), and a few lipid droplets of different sizes (arrowheads) are noticed in cytoplasm
Fig. 5a–f Electron micrographs of rat liver, HF/SHAM/HF group. a–e Multiple and different size lipid droplets (arrowheads) occupy most of the cytoplasm. Moreover, the cytoplasm contains mitochondria (M), rough endoplasmic reticulum (rER), and single lysosomes (L). a Two adjacent hepatocytes enclosing a bile canaliculus, note little amount of condensed heterochromatin within the nucleus (N). c, d The blood sinusoids (S) between hepatocytes are visible. f Statistical analysis between HJ/DJOS/HF group (light bar) vs. HF/SHAM/HF group (dark bar). Asterisk indicates statistical difference at p < 0.05