Fig. 2: Role of adipocyte NBR1 in the control of adiposity.
From: NBR1 is a critical step in the repression of thermogenesis of p62-deficient adipocytes through PPARγ
a Recording body weight of adipocyte-specific knockout male mice and WT controls from 13 to 24 weeks of age. Sqstm1f/f (n = 20), Sqstm1AKO (n = 20), Nbr1f/f (n = 19), Nbr1AKO (n = 16), Sqstm1f/fNbr1f/f (n = 18), and Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO (n = 15). p = 0.0261 (13 w), p = 0.0041 (14 w), p = 0.0003 (15 w), p < 0.0001 (16–24 w) Sqstm1AKO vs Sqstm1f/f, p = 0.0177 (22 w), p = 0.012 (23 w), p = 0.0018 (24 w) Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO vs Sqstm1f/fNbr1f/f. b–d Body mass (b) and fat tissue weight of BAT (c) and eWAT, iWAT (d) from adipocyte-specific knockout male mice at 25–28 weeks of age. Sqstm1f/f (n = 14), Sqstm1AKO (n = 13), Nbr1f/f (n = 16), Nbr1AKO (n = 14). Sqstm1f/fNbr1f/f (n = 13) and Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO (n = 17). p = 4.73 × 10−7 Sqstm1AKO vs Sqstm1f/f, p = 3.08 × 10−5 vs Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO, p = 0.046 Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO vs Sqstm1f/fNbr1f/f (b), p = 1.81 × 10−5 Sqstm1AKO vs Sqstm1f/f, p = 0.001 vs Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO (c), p = 2.4 × 10−7 Sqstm1AKO vs Sqstm1f/f, p = 4.33 × 10−6 vs Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO, p = 0.014 Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO vs Sqstm1f/fNbr1f/f (d, left), p = 1.48 × 10−8 Sqstm1AKO vs Sqstm1f/f, p = 6.39 × 10−6 vs Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO, p = 0.01 Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO vs Sqstm1f/fNbr1f/f (d, right).) e Fat and lean mass of 25-week-old mice of indicated genotypes by DEXA analysis. Sqstm1f/f (n = 3), Sqstm1AKO (n = 3), Nbr1f/f (n = 3), Nbr1AKO (n = 3), Sqstm1f/fNbr1f/f (n = 5), and Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO (n = 5). p = 0.0034 Sqstm1AKO vs Sqstm1f/f, p = 0.0237 vs Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO (fat), p = 0.0063 Sqstm1AKO vs Sqstm1f/f, p = 0.0061 vs Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO (lean). f Representative H&E staining in BAT and eWAT and Oil Red O (ORO) staining in livers. H&E staining (n = 3 for Sqstm1f/f, Sqstm1AKO, Nbr1f/f and Nbr1AKO and n = 4 for Sqstm1f/fNbr1f/f and Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO), ORO staining (n = 3, per genotypes). Scale bar = 100 μm. g Adipocyte size measurement from H&E staining of eWAT described above (n = 4, per genotype). p = 0.0016 Sqstm1AKO vs Sqstm1f/f, p = 0.00099 vs Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO. h TG content measurement in livers. Sqstm1f/f (n = 6), Sqstm1AKO (n = 7), Nbr1f/f (n = 6), Nbr1AKO (n = 6), Sqstm1f/f Nbr1f/f (n = 6), and Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO (n = 9). p = 0.0038 Sqstm1AKO vs Sqstm1f/f, p = 0.0001 vs Sqstm1AKONbr1AKO. Data are presented as mean ± SEM (a–e, g, h). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ****p < 0.0001. Two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s post-test (a). Two-tailed Student’s T-test (b–h). Source data are provided as a Source Data file.
