Fig. 5: Effects of P. succinatutens on host adiposity and gut homeostasis.

A Experimental design for evaluating the protective effects of P. succinatutens against HFD-induced obesity (6 mice in each group). Abx: antibiotics. B Effects of P. succinatutens gavage on body weight in HFD-induced obese mice and the morphology of mice’s body size. C Comparison of iWAT weight percentage to body weight among three groups (n = 6). D The abundance of P. succinatutens in colonic contents among three groups (n = 6). E Comparison of fecal propionate between HFD and HFD + Ps mice (n = 6). F Representative hematoxylin and eosin (H&E)-stained images of iWAT. Scale bar, 40 µm (n = 6). G Left, the density distribution of fat cell size in iWAT of mice. Right, the box plot shows the diameter of the adipocyte among the three groups. A total of four samples per group and 3 non-overlapping fields per section were assessed. H mRNA levels of the lipogenic genes and lipolytic genes in iWAT among three groups (n = 6). I Expression of genes involved in fatty acid transport, cholesterol transport, and TAG synthesis among three groups (n = 6). J Alcian Blue-Periodic Acid-Schiff (AB-PAS) staining of mice colon tissues among three groups. The number of goblet cells was calculated. Scale bar, 400 μm (n = 6). K Representative images of sections that performed MUC2-immunofluorescence staining and the mean fluorescence intensity among three groups. Scale bar, 200 µm (n = 3). L Comparison of serum concentrations of pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β, and IL-6) among three groups (n = 6). M mRNA levels of genes involved in TLR4/Myd88/NF-κB signaling cascade among three groups (n = 6). Western blot images (N) and quantization (O) of gene-encoded proteins involved in inflammation-associated TLR4/Myd88/NF-κB signaling cascade (n = 3). Cont: control group, HFD: high-fat diet group, HFD + Ps: mice that received HFD were gavaged with P. succinatutens suspension. Significance between every two groups was analyzed using a two-tailed (unpaired) Student’s t-test. Differences among the three groups were assessed using ordinary one-way ANOVA. Data are shown as mean ± SD. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001, ns not significant difference.