Progress and challenges in analyzing rodent energy expenditure

Article metrics

Whole-body energy expenditure is the summed metabolic activities of tissues and, to remove the influence of body size, ratios of energy expenditure to body mass are often applied but can generate spurious differences. In 2011, a group of experts proposed adoption of ANCOVA for the analysis of metabolic rate but, seven years later, analyses based on ratios remain the most frequent. We discuss some of the barriers to adopting better analytical procedures.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Analytical aspects in rodent metabolic studies.

References

  1. 1.

    NCD-RisC. Lancet 387, 1377–1396 (2016).

  2. 2.

    Wardle, J. & Boniface, D. Int. J. Obes. 32, 527–32 (2008).

  3. 3.

    Lam, Y. Y. & Ravussin, E. Mol. Metab. 5, 1057–1071 (2016).

  4. 4.

    Lighton, J. R. B. Eur. J. Clin. Nutr. 71, 301–305 (2017).

  5. 5.

    Tanner, J. M. J. Appl. Physiol. 2, 1–15 (1949). First paper calling for attention regarding the fallacy of expressing physiological variables per unit of body size.

  6. 6.

    Cochran, W. G. Biometrics 13, 261–281 (1957).

  7. 7.

    Ravussin, E., Lillioja, S., Anderson, T. E., Christin, L. & Bogardus, C. J. Clin. Invest. 78, 1568–1578 (1986).

  8. 8.

    Packard, G. C. & Boardman, T. J. Physiol. Zool. 61, 1–9 (1988).

  9. 9.

    Arch, J. R. S., Hislop, D., Wang, S. J. Y. & Speakman, J. R. Int. J. Obes. 30, 1322–1331 (2006).

  10. 10.

    Butler, A. A. & Kozak, L. P. Diabetes 59, 323–9 (2010).

  11. 11.

    Tschöp, M. H. et al. Nat. Methods 9, 57–63 (2011).

  12. 12.

    Hall, K. D. et al. Lancet 378, 826–37 (2011).

  13. 13.

    Heymsfield, S. B. et al. Am. J. Physiol. Endocrinol. Metab. 282, 132–138 (2002).

  14. 14.

    Ravussin, E. & Bogardus, C. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 49, 968–975 (1989). Remarkable analysis of the main determinants of energy expenditure in humans. This paper also elaborates the need for proper analysis when comparing individuals of different body size.

  15. 15.

    Kleiber, M. The Fire of Life: An introduction to animal energetics (Wiley, 1961).

  16. 16.

    Mitchell, S. E. et al. Oncotarget 8, 17453–17474 (2017).

  17. 17.

    Javed, F. et al. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 91, 907–12 (2010).

  18. 18.

    Speakman, J. R. Front. Physiol. 4, 34 (2013).

  19. 19.

    Tracy, C. & Sugar, J. Physiol. Zool. 62, 993–997 (1989).

  20. 20.

    Mina, A. I. et al. Cell Metab. 28, 656–666 (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

R.F.V. was supported by Fondecyt #11180361 (Conicyt, Chile). J.E.G was supported by Fondecyt #1170117 (Conicyt, Chile).

Author information

J.E.G., E.R. and J.R.S. conceived the work. R.F.V. and J.E.G. designed, acquired and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. All authors interpreted the data, substantively reviewed the manuscript, approved the submitted version and agreed to be personally accountable for their contributions.

Correspondence to Jose E. Galgani.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Table 1. Retrieved articles analyzing energy expenditure in mice and published between July 2012 and June 2018. Related to Fig. 1b.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark