Skip to main content
. 2020 Jun 10;12(7):e12088. doi: 10.15252/emmm.202012088

Figure 5. BAM15 improves body composition and glycemic control independent of weight loss in C57BL/6J mice. BAM15 improves body composition and glycemic control independent of weight loss in C57BL/6J mice.

Figure 5

  • A–D
    (A) Change in body weight (CTRL versus BAM15: P < 0.0001, CTRL versus CR: P < 0.0001), (B) fat mass (CTRL versus BAM15: P = 0.0005, CTRL versus CR: P = 0.0041, BAM15 versus CR: P = 0.043), and (C) lean mass (CTRL versus BAM15: P = 0.0014, CTRL versus CR: P < 0.0001, BAM15 versus CR: P = 0.0047) from baseline to 2 weeks in CTRL‐, BAM15‐, and CR‐treated animals and (D) daily food intake (CTRL versus CR: P = 0.0092, BAM15 versus CR: P = 0.0175) in CTRL‐, BAM15‐, and CR‐treated animals (CTRL N = 7, BAM15 and CR N = 8).
  • E, F
    (E) Blood glucose concentrations at 0, 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 min following intraperitoneal injection of glucose (2 g glucose/kg of body weight; N = 8 per group) and (F) total area under the curve glucose (CTRL versus BAM15: P < 0.0001, CTRL versus CR: P = 0.003, BAM15 versus CR: P = 0.0261) after 2 weeks of treatment in CTRL‐, BAM15‐, and CR‐treated animals (CTRL N = 7, BAM15 and CR N = 8).
  • G, H
    (G) Plasma insulin concentrations at baseline (PRE), and 0 (CTRL versus BAM15: P = 0.0154, CTRL versus CR: P = 0.0425) and 120 min (CTRL versus BAM15: P = 0.0005, CTRL versus CR: P = 0.0211, BAM15 versus CR: P = 0.0264) after injection of glucose after 2 weeks of treatment in CTRL‐, BAM15‐, and CR‐treated animals (CTRL N = 7, BAM15 and CR N = 8) and (H) Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA‐IR) (CTRL versus BAM15: P = 0.0259, CTRL versus CR: P = 0.040) after 2 weeks of treatment in CTRL‐, BAM15‐, and CR‐treated animals (CTRL N = 7, BAM15 and CR N = 8).
Data information: Data are shown as the mean ± SEM with exception to panels A, B, and C which are displayed as a box (mean ± 5‐95% CI) and whiskers (minimum to maximum). *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.01, ****P < 0.001. Panel G was assessed by two‐way repeated‐measures ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons. Panels A, B, C, D, F, and H were assessed by one‐way ANOVA with Tukey's multiple comparisons.