Extended Data Fig. 3: Rosiglitazone increases liver Kupffer cells and eosinophils.

WT mice were fed HFD for 4 months, with the last month on 3 mg kg^-1 d^-1 rosiglitazone (Rosi) compared to 4 months HFD and Chow control mice: a, Percentage and absolute numbers (No.) of CD11b⁺F4/80^low recruited hepatic macrophages (RHMs, *P = 0.0257, ***P < 0.0001). b, Percentage, absolute numbers, and geometric mean fluorescence intensity (gMFI) of Clec4F from CD11b⁺F4/80^high Kupffer cells (KCs, %, Rosi versus HFD, P = 0.0029, #, ***P < 0.0001, gMFI, *P = 0.0222, ***P = 0.0006). c-e, Percentage and absolute numbers of Clec4F⁺F4/80⁺ KCs (%, Rosi versus HFD, P = 0.0137, #, Chow versus Rosi, P = 0.0035, HFD versus Rosi, P = 0.0030) (c), Trem2⁺ KCs (%, Rosi versus HFD, P = 0.0185, #, **P = 0.0035, ***P = 0.0002) (d), and CD11c⁺ KCs (%, *P = 0.0217, Chow versus Rosi, P = 0.009, Chow versus HFD, P < 0.0001) (e). f, Percentage and absolute numbers of CD11c⁺CD9⁺ KCs and gMFI of CD9 from CD11b⁺F4/80^high KCs (%, *P = 0.0055, **P = 0.0075, ***P < 0.0001, #, Chow versus HFD, P = 0.0003, Chow versus Rosi, P < 0.0001, gMFI, **P = 0.0035, Chow versus Rosi, P = 0.0003, Chow versus HFD, P = < 0.0001). g, Percentage and absolute numbers of Siglec F⁺ liver eosinophils (%, Chow versus HFD, P = 0.0008, HFD versus Rosi, P = 0.0038, ***P < 0.0001, # Chow versus HFD, P = 0.0003, HFD versus Chow/Rosi, P < 0.0001). Statistical data are expressed as mean ± s.e.m., with each data point representing a biologically independent mouse from two (gMFI and #, n = 8 per group) or three (%, n = 10 per group) independent cohorts. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.00, while comparing only Rosi versus. HFD with an unpaired Mann-Whitney U-test with two-tailed distribution or comparing all three groups with one-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey′s multiple comparisons tests.

Source data