S in food intake. Power analysis indicates that to determine with 95 certainty whether this 3.7 difference in food intake was significant would require 126 mice of each genotype. As, over a more prolonged period, a difference in 3 days-accumulated food intake of as little as 3.7 is likely to be able alter body weight and composition [23], in this study, we cannot exclude such a small difference being present. As the timing of food intake can influence energy storage independently of total intake [24], we also measured food intakeafter fasting, as well as during the light and dark phases in all animals (Figs 3B, 3C, 3D). However, there was no difference between knockout and control mice of either sex with respect to re-feeding after a 24-hour fast (Fig. 3B, p = 0.8 for both sexes). Additionally, there were no significant differences in the pattern of food intake in the light and dark phase between male and female MIC-12/2 and control mice (Fig. 3C, 3D).Female but not Male MIC-12/2 Mice have Lower Total Energy ExpenditureTo further investigate possible mechanisms underlying the increases in body weight and adiposity of male and female MIC12/2 versus MIC-1+/+ mice, we compared their respiratory exchange ratio (RER), energy expenditure and physical activity (Figs 4 and 5). The increased body weight and adiposity of MIC12/2 animals does not appear to result from differential use of lipids versus carbohydrate as oxidative fuel sources as there was no difference in RER between genotypes (Fig. 4A, 5A). Female mice, MIC-12/2 animals exhibit significantly lower energy expenditureMIC-1/GDF15 Regulates Appetite and Body WeightFigure 6. Major contribution to genotypic difference in total EE was basal metabolism. Correlation between physical activity and EE was based on average values collected over 24 h. Each point represents data collected in 1-h intervals from the (A) male MIC-12/2 and control mice (Trend line equation: MIC-12/2 y = 12932x ?375 R2 = 0.8705, control y = 1418741-86-2 web 18893x ?637 R2 = 0.8813) and (B) female MIC-12/2 and control mice (Trend line equation: MIC-12/2 y = 18517x ?851 R2 = 0.8796, control y = 12326x ?628 R2 = 0.8261). Basal metabolic rate is determined using the function from the trend line and extrapolating to set the physical activity to zero. No significant difference in basal metabolic rate between the male genotypes (0.3560.01 vs 0.3460.02, respectively, p = 0.23, n = 15/group). Basal metabolic rate was significantly lower in the female MIC-12/2 mice compared to control (0.3760.02 vs 0.2960.01, respectively, p,0.01, n = 9/group). Data are means 6 SE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055174.gFigure 7. Physiological levels of human MIC-1/GDF15 reduce weight and food intake in mice. Male MIC-12/2 and MIC-1+/+ mice were infused with human MIC-1/GDF15 (1ug/20gBW/d) or vehicle via osmotic mini-pump. Food intake, body weight and serum levels of human MIC-1/ GDF15 were measured on day 5 of infusion. (A) MIC-1/GDF15-treated MIC-12/2 mice had an average serum MIC-1/GDF15 level of 643667 pg/ml and weighed 95.8660.77 18334597 of their starting body weight whilst vehicle-treated mice weighed 102.360.75 of their starting weight (n = 6/group, p,0.01 unpaired t-test). (B) MIC-1/GDF15-treated MIC-1+/+ mice had an average serum MIC-1/GDF15 level of 576645 pg/ml and weighed 99.8660.47 of their starting weight whilst vehicle-treated mice weighed 10260.52 (n = 14, p = 0.01 unpaired t-test). This decreased body weight in both genotypes was Madrasin associated with reduc.S in food intake. Power analysis indicates that to determine with 95 certainty whether this 3.7 difference in food intake was significant would require 126 mice of each genotype. As, over a more prolonged period, a difference in 3 days-accumulated food intake of as little as 3.7 is likely to be able alter body weight and composition [23], in this study, we cannot exclude such a small difference being present. As the timing of food intake can influence energy storage independently of total intake [24], we also measured food intakeafter fasting, as well as during the light and dark phases in all animals (Figs 3B, 3C, 3D). However, there was no difference between knockout and control mice of either sex with respect to re-feeding after a 24-hour fast (Fig. 3B, p = 0.8 for both sexes). Additionally, there were no significant differences in the pattern of food intake in the light and dark phase between male and female MIC-12/2 and control mice (Fig. 3C, 3D).Female but not Male MIC-12/2 Mice have Lower Total Energy ExpenditureTo further investigate possible mechanisms underlying the increases in body weight and adiposity of male and female MIC12/2 versus MIC-1+/+ mice, we compared their respiratory exchange ratio (RER), energy expenditure and physical activity (Figs 4 and 5). The increased body weight and adiposity of MIC12/2 animals does not appear to result from differential use of lipids versus carbohydrate as oxidative fuel sources as there was no difference in RER between genotypes (Fig. 4A, 5A). Female mice, MIC-12/2 animals exhibit significantly lower energy expenditureMIC-1/GDF15 Regulates Appetite and Body WeightFigure 6. Major contribution to genotypic difference in total EE was basal metabolism. Correlation between physical activity and EE was based on average values collected over 24 h. Each point represents data collected in 1-h intervals from the (A) male MIC-12/2 and control mice (Trend line equation: MIC-12/2 y = 12932x ?375 R2 = 0.8705, control y = 18893x ?637 R2 = 0.8813) and (B) female MIC-12/2 and control mice (Trend line equation: MIC-12/2 y = 18517x ?851 R2 = 0.8796, control y = 12326x ?628 R2 = 0.8261). Basal metabolic rate is determined using the function from the trend line and extrapolating to set the physical activity to zero. No significant difference in basal metabolic rate between the male genotypes (0.3560.01 vs 0.3460.02, respectively, p = 0.23, n = 15/group). Basal metabolic rate was significantly lower in the female MIC-12/2 mice compared to control (0.3760.02 vs 0.2960.01, respectively, p,0.01, n = 9/group). Data are means 6 SE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0055174.gFigure 7. Physiological levels of human MIC-1/GDF15 reduce weight and food intake in mice. Male MIC-12/2 and MIC-1+/+ mice were infused with human MIC-1/GDF15 (1ug/20gBW/d) or vehicle via osmotic mini-pump. Food intake, body weight and serum levels of human MIC-1/ GDF15 were measured on day 5 of infusion. (A) MIC-1/GDF15-treated MIC-12/2 mice had an average serum MIC-1/GDF15 level of 643667 pg/ml and weighed 95.8660.77 18334597 of their starting body weight whilst vehicle-treated mice weighed 102.360.75 of their starting weight (n = 6/group, p,0.01 unpaired t-test). (B) MIC-1/GDF15-treated MIC-1+/+ mice had an average serum MIC-1/GDF15 level of 576645 pg/ml and weighed 99.8660.47 of their starting weight whilst vehicle-treated mice weighed 10260.52 (n = 14, p = 0.01 unpaired t-test). This decreased body weight in both genotypes was associated with reduc.
