Research Paper Volume 13, Issue 17 pp 21526—21546

Calorie intake rather than food quantity consumed is the key factor for the anti-aging effect of calorie restriction

Liver functions affected by the dietary interventions. (A) Representative images of liver sections of mice of from each indicated group (n=5 per group) that were subjected to H&E staining. Original magnification: 20×. Steatohepatitis was scored by a histopathologist (who was blinded to the source condition of each sample) by a semiquantitative method derived from a published procedure [32]. (B) Liver function was assessed via the serum concentrations of triglycerides, cholesterol, ALT, and AST. (C) Transmission electron microscopy images of the liver in different experimental groups. Representative images at a magnification of 10,000× are shown. (D) Mitochondrial density and size. Mitochondrial densities were determined by normalizing the number of counted mitochondria to the area of each randomly selected cell (n=30 cells per group). Quantification of mitochondrial size was performed on five mice from each group. Data are shown as mean ± SEM, #P##P###P*P**P***P

Figure 4. Liver functions affected by the dietary interventions. (A) Representative images of liver sections of mice of from each indicated group (n=5 per group) that were subjected to H&E staining. Original magnification: 20×. Steatohepatitis was scored by a histopathologist (who was blinded to the source condition of each sample) by a semiquantitative method derived from a published procedure [32]. (B) Liver function was assessed via the serum concentrations of triglycerides, cholesterol, ALT, and AST. (C) Transmission electron microscopy images of the liver in different experimental groups. Representative images at a magnification of 10,000× are shown. (D) Mitochondrial density and size. Mitochondrial densities were determined by normalizing the number of counted mitochondria to the area of each randomly selected cell (n=30 cells per group). Quantification of mitochondrial size was performed on five mice from each group. Data are shown as mean ± SEM, #P<0.05, ##P<0.01, ###P<0.001 vs the HF group; *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001 vs the NF group according to ANNOVAS.