Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Figure 1.

RYGB surgery and sampling procedure.

The RYGB surgical procedures connecting the upper jejunum (alimentary channel, red) to the gastric pouch circumpassing the duodenum (biliopancreatic channel, green) (A–B). At termination each segment was sampled using stereological sampling principles into two sets of 7–9 transverse biopsies. One set was used for histology, one set for qPCR analyses (C).

More »

Figure 1 Expand

Figure 2.

Body weight change for gastric bypass (n = 5) and sham-operated rats ad libitum fed (n = 5) and sham-operated body weight matched (n = 5) (A).

Average daily food intake over 20 weeks for sham operated ad libitum fed rats and for gastric bypass rats (B).

More »

Figure 2 Expand

Figure 3.

Representative micrographs of gut morphology (A–C) and GLP-2 immunohistochemistry (D–F) in the alimentary channel of SHAM, RYGB and SHAM WM animals.

More »

Figure 3 Expand

Figure 4.

Stereological estimates of total and regional gut volume (A–B), L-cell number (C–D) and L-cell density (E–F).

All values are presented as mean ± SEM. One-way ANOVA with Tukey's Multiple Comparison post-hoc test, (* = p<0.05,** = p<0.01, *** = p<0.001 for significance).

More »

Figure 4 Expand

Table 1.

Length of gut segments.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Figure 5.

Regional preproglucagon (A) and PYY (B) gene expression normalized to 18s and corrected for the varying epithelial volume (C–D).

Total preproglucagon (E) and PYY (F) gene expression. All values are arbitrary units presented as mean ± SEM. Statistical analysis: One-way ANOVA with Tukey's Multiple Comparison post-hoc test, SHAM vs. RYGB (*); VW vs. RYGB (?). (*? = p<0.05,**?? = p<0.01, for significance).

More »

Figure 5 Expand