TABLE 1

Obesity and energy utilization comparison in LDLR−/− MOB congenics versus LDLR−/− controls

Trait and strainMean valueP value
Fat mass–to–lean mass ratio
    LDLR−/−0.661 ± 0.017
    LDLR−/− MOB60.333 ± 0.29<0.0001*, <0.0001
    LDLR−/− MOB50.623 ± 0.020NS*
Lean mass (g)
    LDLR−/−27.8 ± 0.43
    LDLR−/− MOB625.0 ± 0.580.0001*
    LDLR−/− MOB526.0 ± 0.500.01*
Fat mass (g)
    LDLR−/−18.4 ± 0.60
    LDLR−/− MOB68.5 ± 0.79<0.0001*, <0.0001
    LDLR−/− MOB515.5 ± 1.10.01*
Food intake (g)
    LDLR−/−239.1 ± 11.1
    LDLR−/− MOB6262.2 ± 17.0NS*
    LDLR−/− MOB5297.7 ± 16.30.02*
Food efficiency (total grams food consumed divided by change in body weight)
    LDLR−/−12.4 ± 0.042
    LDLR−/− MOB628.9 ± 3.1<0.0001*, 0.004
    LDLR−/− MOB518.4 ± 1.7NS*
  • Data are means ± SE. Mice were fed Western diet. P values were calculated by ANOVA. Samples size for NMR measures were 26 for LDLR−/− controls, 21 for LDLR−/− MOB5, and 16 for LDLR−/− MOB5. Food intake sample size was four for all strains. For food efficiency samples size was 11 for LDLR−/− controls, 9 for LDLR−/− MOB6, and 9 for LDLR−/− MOB5.

  • *

    * LDLR−/− vs. LDLR−/− MOB congenic;

  • LDLR−/− MOB6 vs., LDLR −/− MOB5.