Relevance of control diet choice in metabolic studies: impact in glucose homeostasis and vascular function

Figures

• 

  Figure 1. (A) Diagram bars show basal glucose levels before glucose administration. (B) Glucose concentrations during GTT, (C) AUC during the GTT in Chow and LF mice and (D) insulin levels assessed 15 min after glucose administration. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM of 7–10 determinations per group. *P < 0.05 compared with Chow mice, Student’s t-test (panels A,C); Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s comparison test (panel B).

• 

  Figure 2. (A) Cumulative concentration-response curves to phenylephrine (10−8–10−6 M) in aortic segments from both Chow and LF animals. (B,C) Cumulative concentration-response curves to phenylephrine (10−8–10−6 M) in aortic segments from both Chow (B) and LF (C) animals pre-incubated or not with L-NAME (10−4 M). (D) Bar diagrams showing AUC from cumulative concentration-response curves to phenylephrine (10−8–10−6 M) in aortic segments in presence or not of L-NAME. The percentage of increased contractile responses elicited by L-NAME and shown in black bars indirectly reflects basal NO availability. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM of 7–10 determinations per group. *P < 0.05 and ***P < 0.001 compared with the corresponding control group, Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s comparison test (panels A–C), Student’s t-test (panel D).

• 

  Figure 3. (A) Cumulative concentration-response curves to acetylcholine (10−9–10−4M) and (B) sodium nitroprusside (10−12–10−5M) in aortic segments from both Chow and LF animals. (C,D) Cumulative concentration-response curves to Ach (10−9–10−4M) in aortic segments from both Chow (C) and LF (D) animals pre-incubated or not with L-NAME (10−4 M). (E,F) Cumulative concentration-response curves to acetylcholine (10−9–10−4 M) in aortic segments from both Chow (E) and LF (F) animals pre-incubated or not with indomethacin (3 × 10−6M). The percentage of inhibition of relaxant responses elicited by L-NAME (G) or indomethacin (H) and shown in white bars indirectly reflects NO and PGI2 contribution, respectively. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM of 7–10 determinations per group. *P < 0.05 and ***P < 0.001 compared with the corresponding control group, Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s comparison test (panels A–F), Student’s t-test (panels G,H).

• 

  Figure 4. (A) Cumulative concentration-response curves to insulin (10−9–10−5 M) in aortic segments from both Chow and LF animals. (B,C) Cumulative concentration-response curves to insulin (10−9–10−5 M) in aortic segments from both Chow (B) and LF (C) animals pre-incubated or not with L-NAME (10−4 M). The percentage of inhibition of relaxant responses elicited by L-NAME (D) and shown in white bars indirectly reflects NO contribution. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM of 7–10 determinations per group. *P < 0.05 and ***P < 0.001 compared with the corresponding control group, Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Bonferroni’s comparison test (panels A–C), Student´s t-test (panel D).