Biomechanical Properties of Mouse Carotid Arteries With Diet-Induced Metabolic Syndrome and Aging

Figures

• 

  FIGURE 1. In vivo axial stretch ratio and typical arterial response under a pressure-diameter testing. (A): Estimation of the in vivo axial stretch ratio as the intersection point of the three axial force-stretch curves at different pressure values (50 mmHg, 90 mmHg, 120 mmHg). (B): Estimated in vivo ratio for the age (young, adult and old) and diet (ND and HFHS) groups. (C,D): Typical axial force-pressure and pressure-outer diameter response of arteries at three different axial stretches (in vivo, 5% above and below in vivo) (*p < 0.05).

• 

  FIGURE 2. Average (mean ± SEM) axial force-pressure (A,B) and pressure-outer diameter (C,D) responses at in vivo axial stretch ratio for the age (young, adult and old) and diet (ND and HFHS) groups.

• 

  FIGURE 3. Average (mean ± SEM) experimental longitudinal (A,B) and circumferential (C,D) Cauchy stress-stretch responses for the age (young, adult and old) and diet (ND and HFHS) groups. Cauchy stress at MAP in longitudinal (E) and circumferential (F) direction as a function of age (young, adult and old) and diet (ND and HFHS) (*p < 0.05).

• 

  FIGURE 4. Fitting of a 4-fiber family model to the longitudinal (A) and circumferential (B) Cauchy stress-stretch curves at three different axial stretches (in vivo, 5% above and below in vivo). The equations for the longitudinal and circumferential Cauchy stresses were fitted to the experimental data under the three axial stretches simultaneously. Best-fit parameters and coefficient of determination, R2 are given in Supplementary Tables S1–S3.

• 

  FIGURE 5. Comparison of theoretical calculated strain energy density (mean ± SEM) as a function of age (young, adult, and old) and diet (ND and HFHS). (A–E): Theoretical calculated strain energy density as a function of the applied pressure. The five sub-figures show the effect of diet (A–C) and aging (D,E) on strain energy. The bar graphs (F,G) show the averaged (mean ± SEM) normalized difference in strain energy (*p < 0.05).

• 

  FIGURE 6. Average (mean ± SEM) material stiffness at MAP in longitudinal (A) and circumferential (B) direction as a function of age (young, adult, and old) and diet (ND and HFHS) (*p < 0.05).