Male GDF15 knockout DIO mice had lower locomotor activity.

<p>(A) X-axis activity of male DIO mice: continuous 3-d recording and average value of each light cycle. (B) Z-axis activity of male DIO mice: continuous 3-d recording and average value of each light cycle. (C) Continuous 3-d recording of food intake of male DIO mice. (D) Cumulative food intake of male DIO mice. n = 6. Raw CLAMS recorded data are shown as mean. Analyzed average values are shown as mean±SEM. *p<0.05, **p<0.01 between WT and KO by 2-way ANOVA.</p

Male GDF15 knockout DIO mice had lower metabolic rate than wildtype mice.

<p>(A) Oxygen consumption of male DIO mice: continuous 3-d recording and average value of each light cycle. (B) RER of male DIO mice: continuous 3-d recording and average value of each light cycle. (C) Heat production of male DIO mice: continuous 3-d recording and average value of each light cycle. n = 6. CLAMS recorded data are shown as mean. Analyzed average values are shown as mean±SEM. *p<0.05 between WT and KO by unpaired t-test.</p

Metabolic rate and RER of female mice.

<p>(A) Oxygen consumption of female DIO mice: continuous 3-d recording and average value of each light cycle. (B) RER of female DIO mice: continuous 3-d recording and average value of each light cycle. (C) Heat production of female DIO mice: continuous 3-d recording and average value of each light cycle. n = 5–7. CLAMS recorded data are shown as mean. Analyzed average values are shown as mean±SEM.</p

Male GDF15 knockout DIO mice had higher glucose levels, insulin levels and worsened glucose tolerance.

<p>(A) 4hr fasting blood glucose levels of male mice. (B) 4hr fasting blood glucose levels of female mice. (C) 4hr fasting serum insulin levels of male mice. (D) 4hr fasting serum insulin levels of female mice. (E) Blood glucose levels of male mice during oral glucose tolerance test. (F) Blood glucose levels of female mice during oral glucose tolerance test. n = 12–21 for male mice. n = 11–22 for female mice. Data are shown as mean±SEM. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001 between WT and KO by 2-Way ANOVA.</p

Male GDF15 were more prone to high fat diet-induced obesity.

<p>(A) Body weight of male mice. (B) Body weight of female mice. (C) Average daily food intake. (D) Body composition of male mice. n = 12–21 for male mice. n = 11–22 for female mice. Data are shown as mean±SEM. *p<0.05, ***p<0.001 between WT and KO by ANOVA.</p

Photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) in relation to canopy position.

<p>Data are represented in terms of the percentage of PPFD measured at the uppermost canopy position. Measurements were taken at midday at the flag leaf and the next three leaves (2nd, 3rd, and 4th leaves) on (A) Sept. 1, 2008, and (B) Aug. 26, 2009. N1, N2, N3, N4, N5, and N6 indicate N application rates of 0, 75, 150, 225, 300, and 375 kg N ha⁻¹, respectively.</p

Temporal dynamics of K_SPAD in plants grown under different N application rates.

<p>K_SPAD values were calculated from the data in Fig. 3. Data in the boxes are negative, indicating that SPAD readings increased with increasing canopy depth. N1 to N6 are the same as in the legend in Fig. 1.</p

Temporal dynamics of chlorophyll concentration (based on per - unit fresh weight) and N concentration (based on per - unit dry weight) of individual leaves under six N application rates.

<p>N1 to N6 are the same as in the legend in Fig. 1.</p

Temporal dynamics of SPAD readings over leaf lifespan fitted to a piecewise function.

<p>Leaf lifespan was divided into three growth stages: growth, function, and senescence. The leaf age difference is the difference in leaf physiological age between upper and lower leaves. The dynamics of leaf SPAD readings of upper and lower leaves were assumed to follow the same trajectory (piecewise function). Angle <i>β</i> served as an index of the SPAD reading distribution gradient.</p

Temporal changes in the distribution of SPAD readings of rice plants grown under six N application rates during (A - E) 2008 and (F - J) 2009.

<p><i>F</i> is the cumulative leaf area index (LAI) from the top of the canopy, <i>F_t</i> is total LAI; <i>F/F_t</i> is the relative LAI. Each value is an average of 30 measurements. Bars indicate standard error of means. N1 to N6 are the same as in the legend in Fig. 1.</p