Skip to main content
. 2018 Apr 12;12:89–97. doi: 10.1016/j.molmet.2018.04.005

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Whole-body phenotype and glucose metabolism of chow-, and HFD-fed female IL-18R−/− mice. A: Growth curves during chow and HFD (CON-chow: n = 12; CON-HFD: n = 12; IL-18R−/−-chow: n = 10; IL-18R−/−-HFD: n = 12). B: Total mass (TM), lean body mass (LBM), and fat mass (FM) during chow diet (CON-chow: n = 12; IL-18R−/−-chow: n = 10). C: Total mass (TM), lean body mass (LBM), and fat mass (FM) during HFD (CON-HFD: n = 12; IL-18R−/−-HFD: n = 12). D: Intraperitoneal glucose tolerance during chow and HFD, 16 weeks after start of the study with area under the curve (AUC) inserted for chow and HFD (CON-chow: n = 12; IL-18R−/−-chow: n = 9; CON-HFD: n = 12; IL-18R−/−-HFD: n = 12). E: Intraperitoneal insulin tolerance test in females during chow and HFD, 16 weeks after start of the study, with area under the curve (AUC) inserted for chow and HFD (CON-chow: n = 11; IL-18R−/−-chow: n = 10; CON-HFD: n = 11; IL-18R−/−-HFD: n = 12). In the intraperitoneal insulin tolerance test 0.3 mU/kg and 0.5 mU/kg was used for chow and HFD, respectively. Results are presented as mean ± SEM. ***p < 0.0001 vs chow (A,D); *p < 0.05 (B); §p = 0.054 vs CON chow.