Table 6.
Subcuteanous WAT ECM parameters in healthy obese women compared with those with MetS
| Healthy Obese | MetS Obese | P Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tensile strength, mN/mm2 | 13.7 ± 2.5 | 10.4 ± 2.3 | 0.36 |
| Sirius red (collagen) | 1,688 ± 386 | 1,326 ± 498 | 0.57 |
| DTAF (collagen/ECM) | 0.095 ± 0.010 | 0.092 ± 0.017 | 0.88 |
| Zymography (AU) | |||
| Pro-MMP-9 | 1.20 ± 0.23 | 0.88 ± 0.13 | 0.30 |
| Pro-MMP-2 | 0.68 ± 0.22 | 0.89 ± 0.18 | 0.49 |
| OmniMMP* | 492 ± 52 | 629 ± 135 | 0.31 |
| Gene Expression** | |||
| COL1A2 | 100.0 ± 17.2 | 81.9 ± 18.7 | 0.49 |
| COL3A1 | 100.0 ± 12.7 | 78.3 ± 10.9 | 0.23 |
| COL5A2 | 100.0 ± 20.4 | 72.2 ± 8.8 | 0.28 |
| COL6A3 | 100.0 ± 19.9 | 73.7 ± 12.2 | 0.31 |
| COL8A1 | 100.0 ± 16.4 | 77.2 ± 25.9 | 0.45 |
| ELN | 100.0 ± 22.2 | 116.5 ± 38.7 | 0.70 |
| TNC | 100.0 ± 25.7 | 94.7 ± 10.7 | 0.87 |
| BGN | 100.0 ± 6.2 | 108.0 ± 27.9 | 0.76 |
| DCN | 100.0 ± 17.8 | 87.1 ± 21.1 | 0.65 |
| LUM | 100.0 ± 17.7 | 107.8 ± 36.4 | 0.84 |
| FBN1 | 100.0 ± 17.3 | 92.2 ± 24.0 | 0.79 |
| MFAP5 | 100.0 ± 24.4 | 109.2 ± 25.3 | 0.80 |
| MMP2 | 100.0 ± 24.5 | 103.9 ± 25.3 | 0.91 |
| MMP7 | 100.0 ± 23.3 | 328.2 ± 139.3 | 0.09 |
| MMP9 | 100.0 ± 17.5 | 250.0 ± 114.9 | 0.16 |
| MMP14 | 100.0 ± 19.0 | 107.2 ± 34.5 | 0.85 |
| CTSK | 100.0 ± 11.8 | 87.8 ± 23.3 | 0.62 |
| CTSL1 | 100.0 ± 8.7 | 92.3 ± 16.5 | 0.67 |
| CTSS | 100.0 ± 9.3 | 173.8 ± 41.1 | 0.07 |
| SERPINE1 | 100.0 ± 35.5 | 97.4 ± 17.4 | 0.95 |
| PLAUR | 100.0 ± 15.9 | 121.7 ± 31.0 | 0.51 |
Data are presented as means ± SE; n = 11 and n = 9 for healthy tensile strength and Sirius red, and n = 5–9 for MetS tensile strength, Sirius red, 5-DTAF, and MMP measurements.
*
OmniMMP units are emission at 405 nm minus blank.
**
mRNA abundances measured in a subset of subjects with available samples, expressed as percent of healthy obese group mean (n = 9 and 7 for healthy and MetS, respectively, for mRNA). Statistical comparisons by Student's t-test; there were potential trends (P < 0.1) in MMP-7 and CTSS (values shown in boldface). One healthy subject had a Sirius red value of 122,296 and was thus excluded as an outlier.