Skip to main content
. 2020 Dec 19;45:101149. doi: 10.1016/j.molmet.2020.101149

Fig. s5.

Fig. s5

7,8-DHF improved lipid metabolism and insulin sensitivity in the LFD- and HFD-fed mice. (A) Images of H-E staining of inguinal WAT sections. Representative results of four different mice from each group are shown. Scale bar, 100 μm. (B) Representative photomicrographs of liver sections using H-E staining. Scale bar, 100 μm. (C)–(E) Serum TG, FFA, and T-CHO levels (n = 10-12; ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗∗p < 0.001, N.S: not significant, LFD control vs LFD+DHF10, Student’s t test; ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001, HFD control vs LFD control, Student’s t test; &p < 0.05, &&p < 0.01, &&&p < 0.001, HFD control vs HFD+DHF5, HFD+DHF10, and HFD+DHF20, one-way ANOVA). (F)–(G) Fasting glucose and insulin levels in serum. (n = 10-12; ∗∗∗p < 0.001, N.S: not significant, LFD control vs LFD+DHF10, Student’s t test; ###p < 0.001, HFD control vs LFD control, Student’s t test; &&p < 0.01, &&&p < 0.001, HFD control vs HFD+DHF5, HFD+DHF10, and HFD+DHF20, oneway ANOVA). (H)–(I) Time-dependent profiles of serum glucose levels in GTT and ITT (n = 7–8). (J)–(K) Area under the curve (AUC) from GTT and ITT (n = 7–8; ∗∗∗p < 0.001, LFD control vs LFD+DHF10, Student’s t test; ##p < 0.01, ###p < 0.001, HFD control vs LFD control, Student’s t test; &p < 0.05, &&p < 0.01, &&&p < 0.001, HFD control vs HFD+DHF5, HFD+DHF10, and HFD+DHF20, one-way ANOVA).