The Oral History of Vic Salerno

<p>AEA, anandamide; PEA, palmitoylethanolamide; OEA, oleoylethanolamide; 2-AG, 2-arachidonoylglycerol. Values are means ± SD, n = 10.</p><p>* P< 0.05.</p><p>Visceral adipose tissue N-Acylethanolamides (NAEs), 2-AG and fatty acid concentrations in phospholipids (PL), triacylglycerols (TAG) and non esterified fatty acids (NEFA), in rats fed Lsn-2 PA or Hsn-2 PA for 5 weeks.</p

Fatty acids profile in experimental groups after feeding for 72h with different sugars and fasting for 36h in alive flies.

<p>Different letters indicate significant differences in nmoles/fly of fatty acids between day 0 and values for the various sugars (P<0.05; Tukey test).</p

Characterization of sugar GRN in "l" type sensilla.

<p>Samples of spike discharges and dose-response relationship between spike activity of GRNs of an "l" type sensillum and 1÷100 mM maltose, glucose and sucralose. Mean values ± s.e.m. N = 32–34. Filled symbols indicate significant differences between a concentration and the next lower (P<0.001; Tukey test subsequent to repeated measures ANOVA). Different spike types are indicated by the following symbols: square = "L" spike; triangle = "M" spike; circle = "S" spike.</p

Survival results.

<p>Mean values ± s.e.m. of percentage of flies survived on each feeding substrate after 12, 24, 36 and 48 h fasting. Filled symbols indicate significantly different from control 1 (100% of insects at the end of feeding and start of starvation) (P<0.05; Duncan’s test). Different letters indicate significant differences between sugars at each time check (P<0.0001; Duncan’s test). (*) indicates significant differences from control 2 (starved flies) (P<0.01; Tukey test).</p

Fat storage in <i>Drosophila suzukii</i> is influenced by different dietary sugars in relation to their palatability - Fig 1

<p>(A) SEM image of a proboscis hemilabellum of <i>Drosophila suzukii</i> showing the distribution pattern of taste sensilla. (B) Corresponding schematic arrangement of the three sensillum types: small (s_1-9), intermediate (i_1-7) and large (l_1-9).</p

Electrophysiological, PER and CAFE results.

<p>A) Mean values ± s.e.m. of spike frequency of “sugar” GRN following stimulation with 100 mM maltose, glucose and sucralose. N = 45–50. B) Mean values ± s.e.m. of PER activity following stimulation of labellar sensilla with 100 mM maltose, glucose and sucralose. N = 33. C) Mean values ± s.e.m. of the amount of maltose, glucose or sucralose intake under double-choice conditions. N = 5. * = P<0.05; ** = P<0.005.</p

Metabolic results.

<p>Mean values ± s.e.m. of percentage of total FA, SAFA, MUFA and PUFA in experimental groups after feeding for 72h with different sugars (A) and fasting for 36h in alive flies (B). Asterisk indicates significant differences from the control (100% = day 0). Different letters indicate significant differences between sugars (P < 0.05; Tukey test or P < 0.05: Duncan’s test subsequent to one-way ANOVA).</p

Plasma TNF-alpha, IL-1 and IL-6 concentrations in rats fed Lsn-2 PA or Hsn-2 PA for 5 weeks and treated 12h before sacrifice with i.p. single dose of LPS (0.5mg/Kg of body weight).

<p>Values are means ± SD, n = 10.</p><p>* P< 0.05.</p><p>Plasma TNF-alpha, IL-1 and IL-6 concentrations in rats fed Lsn-2 PA or Hsn-2 PA for 5 weeks and treated 12h before sacrifice with i.p. single dose of LPS (0.5mg/Kg of body weight).</p

Weight gain (A), food intake (B) and feed efficiency (C) in rats fed Hsn-2 PA or Lsn-2 PA diet for 5 weeks.

<p>Feed efficiency is calculated as the amount of Kcal intake needed to gain 1 g of body weight. Therefore, to lower values correspond better feed efficiency. Weight of the animals was recorded weekly, food intake was recorded every 2 days. Values are means ± SD, n = 20. * P< 0.05.</p

Effects of chronic VNS on food intake, gain in body weight and feed conversion efficiency (FCE) in rats.

<p>(<b>A</b>) Change in food intake (<b>B</b>) Change in body weight over 4 weeks. (<b>C</b>) FCE was determined from the number of kilocalories consumed per gram of weight gain. All data are means ± SEM for nine animals per group. *<i>P</i><0.05 versus the corresponding value for sham-operated controls (Scheffe’s test).</p