| Literature DB >> 35301269 |
Hyeon Seok Moon1,2, Hanbin Kim1,2, Bohye Kim1,2, Min-Seon Kim3, Jae Hyun Kim4, Obin Kwon1,2.
Abstract
Background: We aimed to build mouse models of small for gestational age (SGA), recapitulating failure of catch-up growth and dysregulated metabolic outcomes in adulthood.Entities:
Keywords: Glucose metabolism disorders; Growth failure; Obesity; Small for gestational age
Year: 2022 PMID: 35301269 PMCID: PMC8987454 DOI: 10.7570/jomes22013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Obes Metab Syndr ISSN: 2508-6235
Figure 1Protocols for mouse modeling of small for gestational age (SGA). (A) Scheme of each model. Please note that the same cross-fostering procedure at the day of birth was applied for control (Ctrl) groups of model 2 and 3. (B) Comparison of the body size at birth between a Ctrl and the SGA model. (C) Survival curve of offspring of each model. All the data of Ctrl groups were combined into one group. *P< 0.05 for model 2 vs. model 1 or 3; †P< 0.001 for model 4 vs. any of the other models. NCD, normal chow diet; PRD, protein-restricted diet.
Figure 2Anthropometric and metabolic parameters of mouse models of small for gestational age (SGA). Data of model 3 (A-D) and model 4 (E-I) are listed in chronological order. (A) Body weight and length at day of birth. (B) Body length of at week 3. (C) Body length and body mass index (BMI) at week 12. (D) Random blood glucose levels at week 16. (E) Body weight at day of birth. (F) Glucose tolerance test (GTT) of females at week 16. (G) Insulin tolerance test (ITT) of females at week 20. (H) Area under the curve (AUC) of GTT and ITT. (I) Body length at week 24. The value under the bar graphs indicates n for each group. Body length was determined by measuring the nasal-toanal distance. Values are presented as the mean± standard error of the mean. *P< 0.05, †P< 0.01, ‡P< 0.001 vs. control (Ctrl) within the same sex.