Table 1.
GAS6 signaling molecules and the development of obesity in mouse model.
| Model | Comparison | Treatment | GAS6 (tissue) | Axl (tissue) | Mer (tissue) | Tyro3 (tissue) | Body weight (g) | SC fat weight (mg) | GON fat weight (mg) | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Axl+/+ mice | Axl+/+ versus WT | ↑ (Axl+/+) | Augustine et al., 1999 [15] | |||||||
|
| ||||||||||
| GAS6−/− mice | GAS6−/− versus WT | — (GAS6−/−) (SC and GON) | NS | ↓ (GAS6−/−) | ↓ (GAS6−/−) | Maquoi et al., 2005 [3] | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| GAS6−/− mice | GAS6−/− versus WT | — (GAS6−/−) (vaginas) | ↑ (GAS6−/−) (vaginas) | ↑ (GAS6−/−) (vaginas) | ↑ (GAS6−/−) (vaginas) | Salian-Mehta et al., 2014 [28] | ||||
|
| ||||||||||
| C57BL/6 mice | Vehicle versus R428 | R428 oral | 4.3 ± 0.2 versus 4.1 ± 0.3 (ΔCT) (SC) | 4.5 ± 0.2 versus 4.5 ± 0.2 (ΔCT) (SC) | 7.5 ± 0.3 versus 7.2 ± 0.2 (ΔCT) (SC) | 10.7 ± 0.3 versus 10.4 ± 0.3 (ΔCT) (SC) | 30.3 ± 0.7 versus 25.3 ± 0.7∗ | 831.0 ± 58.0 versus 421.0 ± 69.0∗ | 123.0 ± 263.0 versus 685.0 ± 92.0∗ | Lijnen et al., 2011 [16] |
|
| ||||||||||
| C57BL/6 mice | Vehicle versus R428 | R428 oral | 3.1 ± 0.1 versus 2.6 ± 0.1∗ (ΔCT) (GON) | 3.9 ± 0.1 versus 3.6 ± 0.1 (ΔCT) (GON) | 6.7 ± 0.2 versus 6.2 ± 0.2∗ (ΔCT) (GON) | 10.0 ± 0.2 versus 10.1 ± 0.1 (ΔCT) (GON) | 30.3 ± 0.7 versus 25.3 ± 0.7∗ | 831.0 ± 58.0 versus 421.0 ± 69.0∗ | 123.0 ± 263.0 versus 685.0 ± 92.0∗ | Lijnen et al., 2011 [16] |
|
| ||||||||||
| Axl−/− mice | Axl−/− versus WT | SFD | 321.0 ± 59.0 versus 363.0 ± 77.0 (CN) (SC) | 102.0 ± 20.0 versus 420.0 ± 109.0 (CN) (SC) | 74.0 ± 24.0 versus 83.0 ± 16.0 (CN) (SC) | 5.1 ± 1.0 versus 7.6 ± 1.5 (CN) (SC) | 22.0 ± 0.5 versus 22.0 ± 0.5 | 183.0 ± 23.0 versus 182.0 ± 9.6 | Scroyen et al., 2012 [13] | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Axl−/− mice | Axl−/− versus WT | SFD | 1776.0 ± 85.0 versus 1777.0 ± 105.0 (CN) (GON) | 362.0 ± 80.0 versus 1278.0 ± 102.0 (CN) (GON) | 227.0 ± 24.0 versus 225.0 ± 24.0 (CN) (GON) | 13.0 ± 0.9 versus 15.0 ± 1.1 (CN) (GON) | 22.0 ± 0.5 versus 22.0 ± 0.5 | 249.0 ± 44.0 versus 253.0 ± 19.0 | Scroyen et al., 2012 [13] | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Axl−/− mice | Axl−/− versus WT | HFD | 1135.0 ± 57.0 versus 976.0 ± 106.0 (CN) (SC) | 371.0 ± 97.0 versus 1127.0 ± 169.0 (CN) (SC) | 147.0 ± 14.0 versus 126.0 ± 18.0 (CN) (SC) | 13.0 ± 1.2 versus 12.0 ± 1.1 (CN) (SC) | 30.0 ± 1.2 versus 30.0 ± 1.3 | 888.0 ± 92.0 versus 781.0 ± 96.0 | Scroyen et al., 2012 [13] | |
|
| ||||||||||
| Axl−/− mice | Axl−/− versus WT | HFD | 1193.0 ± 124.0 versus 1181.0 ± 111.0 (CN) (GON) | 299.0 ± 79.0 versus 1168.0 ± 128.0 (CN) (GON) | 187.0 ± 30.0 versus 166.0 ± 19.0 (CN) (GON) | 12 ± 0.9 versus 14 ± 1.1 (CN) (GON) | 30.0 ± 1.2 versus 30.0 ± 1.3 | 1476.0 ± 165.0 versus 1160.0 ± 120.0 | Scroyen et al., 2012 [13] | |
∗ P < 0.05; R428, Axl receptor antagonist; SC, subcutaneous fat; GON, gonadal fat; HFD, high-fat diet; SFD, standard fat diet; NS, No significant difference; and CN, copy number.