4.3 Article

Comparison of the adipogenesis in intramuscular and subcutaneous adipocytes from Bamei and Landrace pigs

期刊

BIOCHEMISTRY AND CELL BIOLOGY
卷 92, 期 4, 页码 259-267

出版社

CANADIAN SCIENCE PUBLISHING, NRC RESEARCH PRESS
DOI: 10.1139/bcb-2014-0019

关键词

Bamei pigs; intramuscular adipocytes; subcutaneous adipocytes; proliferation; adipogenesis

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30871811, 31060311]
  2. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [31920130049]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fat deposition is a complex process involving proliferation, differentiation, and lipogenesis of adipocytes. Bamei and Landrace are considered to represent fat-and lean-type pig breeds. Subcutaneous (SC) and intramuscular (IM) pre-adipocytes were cultured to compare the proliferation and lipogenesis in these breeds. The differentiated adipocytes were exposed to glucose or insulin to evaluate their effects on lipogenesis and lipogenic gene expression. Pre-adipocytes proliferated dramatically faster in SC vs. IM cells, and in Bamei vs. Landrace breeds. Lipogenesis and lipogenic gene expression had a greater increase in Bamei than in Landrace, and in SC vs. IM in the process of differentiation. Glucose markedly promoted lipogenesis and lipogenic gene expression in differentiated adipocytes. The stimulation of high-glucose levels on lipogenesis and ChREBP and lipogenic gene expression was higher in SC than IM adipocytes, and in Bamei vs. Landrace. Insulin largely increased SREBP-1c expression, however it modestly stimulated lipogenesis and lipogenic gene expression, and there was no difference between cell populationsor between breeds. These data demonstrated that regional and varietal differences obviously existed in the development of porcine adipocytes. The proliferation and differentiation capacity of pre-adipocytes, and the adipocyte lipogenesis stimulated by glucose, are stronger in Bamei than Landrace, and in SC vs. IM adipocytes independent of breed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据