| Literature DB >> 32243473 |
Giovana Vesentini1,2, Angélica M P Barbosa1,3, Débora C Damasceno2, Gabriela Marini1,2,4, Fernanda Piculo1,2, Selma M M Matheus1,5, Raghavendra L S Hallur1,2, Sthefanie K Nunes1,2, Bruna B Catinelli1,2, Claudia G Magalhães1,2, Roberto Costa1,2, Joelcio F Abbade1,2, José E Corrente1,6, Iracema M P Calderon1,2, Marilza V C Rudge1,2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND ANDEntities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32243473 PMCID: PMC7122752 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0231096
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Flowchart of participant recruitment strategy.
Socio-demographic and clinical characteristics of the study participants.
| non-GDM (n = 10) Mean (SD) | GDM (n = 8) Mean (SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 29.80 (5.03) | 34.50 (6.07) | 0.10 |
| HbA1c | 5.31 (0.66) | 5.36 (0.34) | 0.08 |
| 20% | 50% | 0.09 | |
| 80% | 50% | ||
| Prepregnancy BMI (kg/m2) | 33.63 (7.55) | 29.91 (5.25) | 0.30 |
| BMI at the end of gestation (kg/m2) | 38.22 (6.26) | 34.08 (4.30) | 0.14 |
| Weight gain during pregnancy (kg) | 12.11 (7.96) | 10.46 (6.01) | 0.52 |
| White (%) | 6 (60%) | 5 (62.5%) | 0.40 |
| Primary | 4 (40%) | 3 (37.5%) | 0.32 |
| High school | 4 (40%) | 4 (50%) | |
| University degree | 2 (20%) | 1 (12.5%) | |
| Yes | 5 (50%) | 1 (12.5%) | 0.22 |
| Newborn weight (g) | 3408 (269.92) | 3555 (335.4) | 0.45 |
Data presented as number (%) or mean ± standard deviation. Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; BMI, body mass index. *p<0.05 shows a significant difference compared to the control group.
Maternal and fetal weights in the animal study groups.
| non-MHP (n = 10) Mean (SD) | MHP (n = 10) Mean (SD) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Maternal weight on day 0 (g) | 257.33 (18.49) | 254.53 (22.57) | 0.99 |
| Maternal weight on day 21 (g) | 374.61 (30.58) | 349.39 (38.03) | 0.05 |
| Fetal weight (g) | 5.46 (0.58) | 5.48 (0.61) | 0.77 |
| HbA1c | 3.3 (0.82) | 3.74 (1.92) | 0.65 |
Data presented as mean ± standard deviation. Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation. *p<0.05 shows a significant difference compared to the control group.
Fig 2A: Oral Glucose Tolerance Test (OGTT) performed at 24–28 weeks for pregnant women and on the 17th day of pregnancy for rats. B: The area under the curve of each group is expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. *p<0.05 shows a significant difference compared to the control group (t-test).
Fig 3Micrographs showing slow and fast fibers in a transverse RAM section.
Non-GDM (slow 1, fast 2), GDM (slow 3, fast 4), non-MHP (slow 5, fast 6), and MHP (slow 7, fast 8). (A) The abundance of each fiber type is expressed as percentages, and (B) the area of each fiber type is expressed as mean ± SD. Differences in the abundance of each fiber type between the groups were determined using Poisson distribution. Differences in the fiber area between the groups were determined using the Student’s t-test. *p<0.05 shows a significant difference compared to the control group. Abbreviations: GDM, Gestational Diabetes, MHP, mild hyperglycemic pregnant.
Fig 4Transverse RAM sections stained with picrosirius red showing striated muscle (yellow) and collagen (red). (1) Non-GDM, (2) GDM, (3) non-MHP, and (4) MHP. Differences in the collagen area between the groups were evaluated using the Student’s t-test. *p<0.05 shows a significant difference compared to the control group. Abbreviations: GDM, Gestational Diabetes, MHP, mild hyperglycemic pregnant; RAM, rectus abdominis muscle.
Morphological changes in the RAM of pregnant rats and women with diabetes.
| MHP (rats) (Vesentini et al., 2018) | GDM (women) | |
|---|---|---|
| Ns | ||
| ↓ FAST | ↓ FAST | |
| ↑ SLOW | ↓ SLOW | |
| ↓ FAST | ↓ FAST | |
| ↑ SLOW | ↑ SLOW |
Abbreviations: ns, not significant