Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2010 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Peptides. 2009 Jul 29;30(10):1892–1900. doi: 10.1016/j.peptides.2009.07.012

Figure 3. Response of WT, MC3RKO and MC4RKO treated with BIM-22511 for 14d.

Figure 3

(A) Change in body weight as a percent of initial weight in WT (top panel), MC4RKO (middle panel) or MC3RKO (bottom panel) treated with BIM-22511 (solid circles) or saline (open circles). Note the absence of a response in MC4RKO. (B) Net weight gain or loss in mice treated with saline or BIM-22511. The effects of BIM-22511 on body weight are dependent on MC4R activation. (C) Average daily food intake of mice treated with saline or BIM-22511. MC4RKO were hyperphagic, while MC3RKO exhibited reduced food intake relative to WT (a, P<0.001 vs WT, MC3RKO; b, P<0.05 vs WT). Note that the bars with letters indicate within genotype comparisons (i.e., LSM of saline and BIM treatment groups combined for MC4RKO, compared to LSM of saline and BIM treatment groups for WT). Repeated measures ANOVA indicated a significant increase in MC4RKO treated with BIM-22511. * P<0.01 vs saline within treatment. (D, E) MC4RKO exhibit hepatic steatosis (elevated liver lipid and triglyceride) relative to WT and MC3RKO. There was no significant effect of treatment with BIM22511 on hepatic lipid content, irrespective of genotype.