QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s):
Home     Help     Feedback     Subscriptions     Archive     Search     Table of Contents

First published online July 2, 2004
Journal of Experimental Biology 207, 2859-2866 (2004)
Published by The Company of Biologists 2004
doi: 10.1242/jeb.01120

This Article Summary Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Wiedmer, P. Articles by Klaus, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wiedmer, P. Articles by Klaus, S.

Gender dimorphism of body mass perception and regulation in mice

Petra Wiedmer¹, Michael Boschmann² and Susanne Klaus^1,*

¹ German Institute of Human Nutrition (DIfE) Potsdam-Rehbruecke, Nuthetal, Germany
² Franz-Volhard Clinical Research Center Berlin, Medical Faculty of the Charité, Humboldt-University, Berlin, Germany

View larger version (37K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Changes in total body mass (MTB; A), biological body mass (MBB; B), and energy intake after implantation of weight load (C) into male and female mice. SO, sham-operated mice (open circles); LO, mice containing implants corresponding to 2% of body mass (closed circles); HI, mice containing implants corresponding to 10% of body mass (closed triangles). Data are expressed relative (%) to values measured 3 weeks (for energy intake) and 1 week (for body mass) prior to implantation of the weight load (time 0). Body mass at time 0 was measured immediately after weight implantation; body mass at other time points is the mean of three measurements taken during 1 week. Values are means ± S.E.M., N (male/female): SO (12/11), LO (12/12), HI (10/14), *P<0.05 vs. SO (Dunett's-test).

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Time required for initial biological body mass (MBB) to be regained in male and female mice following acute mass loss after weight implantation. SO, sham-operated mice (white bars); LO, mice containing implants corresponding to 2% of body mass (grey bars); HI, mice containing implants corresponding to 10% of body mass (black bars). There was a significant gender effect (P=0.003). Values are means ± S.E.M., N (male/female): SO (12/11), LO (12/12), HI (10/14). *P=0.011 vs. SO (Dunett's-test).

View larger version (14K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Cumulative energy intake from week 1 to week 14 following weight load. SO, sham-operated mice (white bars); LO, mice containing implants corresponding to 2% of body mass (grey bars); HI, mice containing implants corresponding to 10% of body mass (black bars). Values are means ± S.E.M., N (male/female): SO (12/11), LO (12/12), HI (10/14). *P<0.05 vs. SO (Dunett's-test).

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4 Changes in body composition at 14 weeks after weight implantation in male and female mice relative to initial body composition. (A) Relative changes in fat mass. There was a significant gender effect on changes in fat mass (P=0.046). (B) Relative changes in lean body mass. SO, sham-operated mice (white bars); LO, mice containing implants corresponding to 2% of body mass (grey bars); HI, mice containing implants corresponding to 10% of body mass (black bars). Data (%) are expressed relative to values measured at weight implantation, and are means ± S.E.M., N (male/female): SO (7/5), LO (9/7), HI (7/7). P=0.052 vs. SO (Dunett's-test).