| Literature DB >> 34841103 |
Caroline Pancera Laurindo1, Karen C Rego Gregorio1, Ana Caroline Rippi Moreno1,2, Julia Maia Viudes Agostinho1, Evelyn Carvalho Campos1, Gisele Alborghetti Nai3, Maria Tereza Nunes2, Patrícia Monteiro Seraphim1.
Abstract
AIM: To investigate the effect of resistance training (RT) on hepatocardiovascular and muscle mitochondrial parameters in rats that were fed a high-calorie diet for 12 weeks. MAINEntities:
Keywords: Hepato-cardiac alterations; Mitochondrial biogenesis; Obesity; Resistance training
Year: 2021 PMID: 34841103 PMCID: PMC8605435 DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08374
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Heliyon ISSN: 2405-8440
Figure 1Timeline of interventions.
Characteristics of the animals.
| C | O | E | OE | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Body Weight (g) | 423.0 ± 9.5 | 526.3 ± 12.5∗ | 405.8 ± 13.1∗∗ | 448.4 ± 9.2 |
| Weight Gain (g) | 113.4 ± 14.8 | 182.2 ± 16.8∗ | 114.4 ± 10.1 | 141.8 ± 18.4 |
| AW Adipose Tissue | 5.9 ± 0.2 | 16.1 ± 1.0∗ | 5.6 ± 0.7 | 9.7 ± 0.4∗∗ |
| RW Adipose Tissue | 1.4 ± 0.07 | 3.0 ± 0.1∗ | 1.3 ± 0.1 | 2.2 ± 0.08∗∗ |
| AW Muscle | 2.63 ± 0.07 | 2.80 ± 0.13 | 2.58 ± 0.13 | 2.48 ± 0.08 |
| RW Muscle | 0.619 ± 0.01 | 0.516 ± 0.02 | 0.638 ± 0.02∗ | 0.557 ± 0.01 |
| Kcal/week/animal | 618.6 ± 12.8 | 812.1 ± 8.9∗ | 686.3 ± 12.5∗∗ | 750.5 ± 7.2# |
| CWGCC | 0.22 ± 0.01 | 0.28 ± 0.02∗ | 0.19 ± 0.01 | 0.18 ± 0.02 |
| CFE | 2.48 ± 0.05 | 3.71 ± 0.1∗ | 2.22 ± 0.1 | 2.27 ± 0.2 |
| Fasting Glycemia (mg/dL) | 157.8 ± 3.2 | 217.0 ± 2.3∗ | 122.1 ± 4.7∗∗ | 143.8 ± 6.2 |
| Triglyceridemia (mg/dL) | 50.8 ± 6.7 | 123.9 ± 17.4∗ | 60.0 ± 5.4 | 77.9 ± 2.0 |
Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM of control (C), obese (O), exercise (E) and obese plus exercise (OE) rats. Body weight (g): ∗P < 0.0001 vs. C, E and OE, ∗∗P = 0.04 vs. OE; Weight gain (g): ∗P = 0.02 vs. C and E; Absolute weight (AW) of periepididymal adipose tissue: ∗P < 0.0001 vs. C, E and OE, ∗∗P < 0.05 vs. C and E; Relative Weight (RW) of periepididymal adipose tissue: ∗P < 0.0001 vs. C and E, ∗∗P < 0.05 vs. C, E and O. Absolute weight (AW) of the gastrocnemius muscle: No significance; Relative weight (RW) of the gastrocnemius muscle: ∗P = 0.0002 vs. O and OE; Calorie consumption (Kcal/week/animal): ∗P < 0.0001 vs. C, E and OE, ∗∗P = 0.0003 vs. C and OE, #P < 0.0001 vs. C; CWGCC: ∗P = 0.002 vs. E and OE; CFE: ∗P < 0.0001 vs. C, E and OE; Fasting glycemia: ∗P < 0.001 vs. C, E and OE, ∗∗P = 0.01 vs. C and OE; Fasting triglyceridemia: ∗P < 0.0001 vs. C, E and OE. N = 06 animals per group.
Figure 2Histopathological assessment of the liver. Hematoxylin-eosin-stained images at 400× magnification. In A) C Group: unchanged liver parenchyma, with a mean number of Kupffer cells = 438. O group: Diffuse microvesicular steatosis along the parenchyma, with a mean number of Kupffer cells = 758. E group: unchanged liver parenchyma, with a mean number of Kupffer cells = 649. OE Group: Parenchyma with discrete steatotic focus (square), with a mean number of Kupffer cells = 637. Kupffer cells are indicated by continuous arrows. Dotted frames and arrows indicate steatosis. B) Presence of hepatic steatosis. ∗P < 0.05 vs. C, E and OE; ∗∗P < 0.05 vs. C, E and O. C) Quantification of macrophages. ∗P < 0.05 vs. C; ∗∗P < 0.05 vs. C, E and OE.
Figure 3Cardiovascular parameters. Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM of the control (C), obese (O), exercise (E) and obese plus exercise (OE) groups. A) Pulmonary artery thickness: ∗P < 0.0001 vs. C, E and OE; ∗∗P < 0.05 vs. C and OE; B) Interventricular septum thickness: ∗P < 0.0001 vs. C, E and OE; C) Left ventricle thickness: ∗P < 0.05 vs. C; D) Right ventricle thickness: ∗P < 0.05 vs. C, E and OE; ∗∗P < 0.05 vs. C and E; E) Fractal dimension the left ventricle; F) Fractal dimension the right ventricle: ∗P < 0.05 vs. C, E and OE. N = 6.
Figure 4Protein levels of mitochondrial biogenesis markers. Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM of the control (C), obese (O), exercised(E) and obese plus exercise (OE) groups. A) PGC-1α protein levels: ∗P < 0.05 vs. C and O, ∗∗P < 0.05 vs. O. B) TFAM protein levels: No significance was found. C) NRF2 protein levels: No significance was detected. N = 6 animals per group. Respective Ponceau-stained membranes are shown beside each protein analysis. Supplemental Figure 1 is showing non-adjusted images of the blots and Ponceau-stained membrane for each protein of the Western blotting assay. Supplemental Figure 2 is showing two different experiments of Western blotting for each protein.
Figure 5Protein expression of mitochondrial oxidative phosphorylation protein complexes. Values are expressed as the mean ± SEM of the control (C), obese (O), exercise (E) and obese plus exercise (OE) groups. A) OXPHOS I protein levels: no significance; B) OXPHOS II protein levels: no significance; C) OXPHOS III protein levels: ∗P < 0.001 vs. C, E and OE; D) OXPHOS IV protein levels: ∗P = 0.01 vs. E and OE; E) OXPHOS V protein levels: ∗P = 0.002 vs. E; F) Above: Image showing the target proteins in the Western blot. Below: Ponceau-stained membrane is shown. N = 5 animals per group. Supplemental Figure 1 is showing non-adjusted images of the blots and Ponceau-stained membrane for OXPHOS protein complexes of the Western blotting assay. Supplemental Figure 2 is showing two different experiments of Western blotting for each protein.