Skip to main content
. 2020 Mar 23;130(5):2252–2269. doi: 10.1172/JCI132139

Figure 2. EAE alters growth dynamics and serves as a risk factor for metabolic disease in adult males.

Figure 2

(A) Protocol for assessing metabolic health outcomes following EAE. (B) BMI at the initiation of the confirmatory diet challenge. 1% EtOH–exposed males have a significantly higher BMI than controls. *P = 0.0193; ** P = 0.005, Brown-Forsythe and Welch’s ANOVA with Games-Howell multiple comparisons test. (C) BMI following 4 weeks of diet challenge. 1% EtOH–exposed males on HFHC but not ND have a larger BMI than matched controls. **P = 0.002; *P = 0.0429, ordinary 1-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. (D) After 8 weeks of diet challenge, EAE has no effect on BMI in either diet group. HFHC diet increases BMI in all cohorts. ****Padj ≤ 0.0001, 2-way ANOVA with Šidák’s multiple comparisons test. (E) Fasting BG level after 8 weeks of diet. *P = 0.0181, Brown-Forsthye and Welch’s ANOVA with Dunnett’s T3 multiple comparisons test; ***P = 0.0006, 2-way ANOVA with Šidák’s multiple comparisons test. Error bars show mean with SD. (F) Time course of BMI in 0% EtOH (blue), 0.5% EtOH (orange), and 1% EtOH (red) cohorts receiving ND (dotted line) or HFHC diet (solid line). *P < 0.05, ordinary 1-way ANOVA with Tukey’s multiple comparisons test. (G and H) Ethanol interacts with diet to influence BMI gain for weeks 0 to 4 (ND: slope = –0.0016, P = 2.15 × 10–06; interaction [difference in slope]: 0.0017752, P = 0.000317) and weeks 4 to 8 of the diet (ND: slope = 0.00084, P = 0.0255; HFHC diet: slope = –0.00087, P = 0.0225; interaction: –0.0017148; P = 0.00146). The units for slope and interaction are (g/cm2)/ethanol%. P values determined using linear regression. Error bars show mean with SD. Sample numbers (n) noted under figure panels.