Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T01:53:21.805Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effect of gold thioglucose-induced obesity on adipose tissue weight and cellularity in male and female mice suckled in large and small litters: investigations into sex differences and site differences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2007

Michael Enser ,
Jennifer Roberts  and
Frances Whittington
Michael Enser
Affiliation:
AFRC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
Jennifer Roberts
Affiliation:
AFRC Meat Research Institute, Langford, Bristol BS18 7DY
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

1. Over- or undernutrition of newborn mice was caused by suckling in litters consisting initially of four or eighteen pups. After weaning, mice were fed ad lib. At 13 weeks some mice received gold thioglucose (GTG, 600 mg/kg, intraperitoneally) to induce hyperphagia, and all were killed at 39 weeks.

2. Mice suckled in small litters were heavier, with more body fat and protein. GTG treatment induced rapid weight gain and treated mice from large litters were heavier than untreated mice from small litters. However, the effect of litter size was not totally removed since GTG-treated small-litter mice were heavier than GTG-treated large-litter mice and had more fat, although body protein was not different.

3. Fat distribution between the depots was related to total body fatness and not to the treatment.

4. In male mice, preweaning undernutrition resulted in smaller fat depots containing smaller cells. GTG treatment of large-litter mice restored both to the levels found in small-litter mice: the depots of the latter mice were not significantly different after treatment.

5. In female mice, preweaning undernutrition resulted not only in smaller depots and cells but also fewer cells in all depots except mesenteric. GTG-treatment caused larger depots and cells in all mice with no difference in cell size whether mice were from large or small litters. The number of cells in the perirenal and mesenteric depots was greater in GTG-treated mice and was the same whether mice were from large or small litters.

6. We conclude that the level of preweaning nutrition does not affect the ability of adipose tissue to develop subsequently through hypertrophy or hyperplasia of the adipocytes or both, given a sufficient energy surplus consisting of normal pelleted feed, low in lipid.

Type
Papers on General Nutrition
Information
British Journal of Nutrition , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , November 1985 , pp. 645 - 654
Copyright
Copyright © The Nutrition Society 1985

References

Allen, P. & McCarthy, J. C. (1980). Animal Production 31, 1–11.Google Scholar
Bailey, J. W., Andersson, D. D., Verstegen, M. W. A. & Curtis, S. E. (1980). Growth 44, 220–229.Google ScholarPubMed
Brecher, G. & Waxler, S. H. (1949). Proceedings of the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine 70, 498–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cryer, A. & Jones, H. M. (1980). Biochemical Journal 186, 805–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eisen, E. J. & Leatherwood, J. M. (1978). Journal of Nutrition 108, 1652–1662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faust, I. M., Johnson, P. R. & Hirsch, J. (1980). Journal of Nutrition 110, 2027–2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faust, I. M., Johnson, P. R., Stern, J. S. & Hirsch, J. (1978). American Journal of Physiology 235, E279–E286.Google Scholar
Greenwood, M. R. C. & Hirsch, J. (1974). Journal of Lipid Research 15, 474–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, J. & Han, P. W. (1969). Journal of Lipid Research 10, 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P. R. & Hirsch, J. (1972). Journal of Lipid Research 13, 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, P. R.Zucker, L. M., Cruce, J. A. F. & Hirsch, J. (1971). Journal of Lipid Research 12, 706–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knittle, J. L. & Hirsch, J. (1968). Journal of Clinical Investigation 47, 2091–2098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemonnier, D. (1972). Journal of Clinical Investigation 51, 2907–2915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liebelt, R. A., Ichinoe, S. & Nicholson, N. (1965). Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 131, 559–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R. J. (1974). Growth 38, 465–476.Google ScholarPubMed
Parkes, A. S. (1926). Annals of Applied Biology 13, 374–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rakow, L. (1977). Beiträge zur Pathologie 161, 256–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanders, M. K., Lakey, J. R. & Singh, D. (1973). Physiological Psychology 1, 237–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sjostrom, L., Bjorntorp, P. & Vrana, J. (1971). Journal of Lipid Research 12, 521–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Widdowson, E. M. & McCance, R. A. (1960). Proceedings of the Royal Society London 152, 188–206.Google Scholar
Wise, A. (1975). Nutrition and Metabolism 19, 291–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar