Macro fat and micro fat: insulin sensitivity and gender dependent response of adipose tissue to isocaloric diet change

Figures & data

Table 1. Comparison of cell-size distribution variable of each subject group at basal conditions

	ISM	ISF	P value	IRM	P value	IRF	P value
Peak diameter	90.8 ± 9.7	116.9 ± 14.0	0.0047	105.2 ± 15.8	0.17	117.3 ± 16.6	0.014
Nadir diameter	59.4 ± 5.4	77.3 ± 12.1	0.015	72.2 ± 13.9	0.14	78.3 ± 9.6	0.004
Peak value	0.0066 ± 0.002	0.0067 ± 0.0018	0.95	0.0049 ± 0.00083	0.17	0.0053 ± 0.0014	0.18
Nadir value	0.0039 ± 0.0011	0.0026 ± 0.0009	0.038	0.0034 ± 0.0011	0.47	0.0028 ± 0.0013	0.19
%Small (%)	50.5 ± 7.25	52.5 ± 11.1	0.75	59.16 ± 7.76	0.15	59.1 ± 10.3	0.16
Small/Large	1.05 ± 0.3	1.24 ± 0.6	0.61	1.5 ± 0.5	0.18	1.7 ± 1.1	0.30

Both definitions of peak and nadir are the same as McLaughlin et al.'s study⁹; the diameters are the cell diameter values corresponding to the peak or nadir point, respectively, and the peak or nadir values are the normalized cell-size distribution values at peak or nadir, respectively.

The comparison is performed for each variable between the other 3 subject groups and ISM.

Table 2. Relative difference of cell-size distribution characteristics^†

					P value of specific Comparison
	ISM	ISF	IRM	IRF	ISM-ISF	ISM-IRM	ISF-IRF	IRM-IRF
CI =20%
%Small	1.5e-5 ± 6.3e-6	4.2e-6 ± 2.8e-6	1.6e-5 ± 8.1e-6	1.4e-5 ± 9.3e-6	0.0005	0.86	0.002	0.85
Small/Large	1.4e-5 ± 3.7e-6	4.1e-6 ± 1.2e-6	2.1e-5 ± 6.0e-6	1.8e-5 ± 1.2e-5	1e-6	0.089	7.7e-4	0.63
CI =70%
%Small	−5.7e-6 ± 2.1e-6	−1.9e-6 ± 9.3e-7	−6.8e-6 ± 3.2e-6	−7.2e-6 ± 3.3e-6	0.0002	0.56	4.6e-5	0.81
Small/Large	−5.6e-6 ± 1.7e-6	−1.8e-6 ± 3.7e-7	−9.6e-6 ± 2.8e-6	−1.1e-5 ± 5.8e-6	5.5e-6	0.051	4.9e-5	0.63

^†The values were calculated as the relative differences of specific variables compared with the basal states.

^‡The values of peak or nadir are the values at peak or nadir point.

Figure 1. Estimated parameter at specific diet composition (CI, %) (A, B) Turnover rate coefficient “D” distinguished by (A) ISM, ISF, IRM, IRF; (B) by the average values of all male or female; (C, D) Growth/shrinkage coefficient “Vm” distinguished (C) by ISM, ISF, IRM, IRF; (D) by average values of all male or female, which is calculated as the mean value of all male or all female subject based on the estimated parameter for ISM- IRM, ISF- IRF.

Figure 2. Representative changes of adipose cell-size distribution time courses with specific diet composition (A) CI = 10%; (B) CI = 40%; (C) CI = 60%; (D) CI = 70%. The changes are calculated as the difference between the cell-size distribution at specific time n(s,t_j) and the initial cell-size distribution n(s,t0). The results of different simulation time are compared: dashed line, 4 days; dotted line, 9 days; dash-dot line, 14 days. (One of the ISF subjects is shown here.)

Figure 3. Average changes of adipose cell-size distribution (relative frequency) after 2 weeks for all male or all female subjects with diet composition (A) CI = 10% or (B) CI = 70%. Two models simulations are compared. Solid line, male from MOD 1; dashed line, female from MOD 1; dash-dot line, male from MOD 2; dotted line, female from MOD 2.

Figure 4. Average changes of adipose cell-size distribution (relative frequency) after 2 weeks for ISM, ISF, IRM, IRF subjects with diet composition (A) CI = 10% or (B) CI 70%. Solid line, ISM; dashed line, ISF; dash-dot line, IRM, dotted line, IRF.