Skip to main content
. 2016 Aug 16;5(10):1006–1014. doi: 10.1016/j.molmet.2016.08.005

Figure 3.

Figure 3

The effects of RYGB on body composition are similar in FGF21−/−and WT mice. A–C: Fat mass, lean mass, and adiposity index (fat mass/lean mass) in WT (open symbols) and FGF21−/− mice (closed symbols) before and after RYGB (circles), sham surgery (squares), or weight-matching (triangles). *p < 0.05, RYGB vs. Sham, both genotypes; ˆp < 0.05, RYGB vs. Sham, KO only; #p < 0.05, RYGB vs. WM, both genotypes; +p < 0.05, RYGB vs. WM, KO only (based on separate 2-way ANOVA at each time point followed by Bonferroni-corrected multiple comparison tests). Means ± SEM, n = 4–12 mice per group. D, E: Inguinal, epididymal, retroperitoneal, and BAT fat pad weights 10 weeks after RYGB (gray bars), sham surgery (white bars), and weight-matching (shaded bars). Means ± SEM, n = 4–12 mice per group. Bars that do not share the same letters are significantly different from each other (p < 0.05, based on ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni-corrected multiple comparison tests).