Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 17, 2026

A Model of Chronic Nutrient Infusion in the Rat
Published on: August 14, 2013
Comparative Screening of the Liver Gene Expression Profiles from Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes Rat Models
Paloma Lucía Guerra-Ávila1, Tereso J Guzmán1,2, Belinda Vargas-Guerrero1
1Instituto de Investigación en Enfermedades Crónico-Degenerativas, Instituto Transdisciplinar de Investigación e Innovación en Salud, Departamento de Biología Molecular y Genómica, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud (C.U.C.S.), Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Sierra Mojada 950, Puerta peatonal 7, Col. Independencia, Guadalajara C.P. 44350, Mexico.
Abstract:
Experimental animal models of diabetes can be useful for identifying novel targets related to disease, for understanding its physiopathology, and for evaluating emerging antidiabetic treatments. This study aimed to characterize two rat diabetes models: HFD + STZ, a high-fat diet (60% fat) combined with streptozotocin administration (STZ, 35 mg/kg BW), and a model with a single STZ dose (65 mg/kg BW) in comparison with healthy rats. HFD + STZ- induced animals demonstrated a stable hyperglycemia range (350-450 mg/dL), whereas in the STZ-induced rats, we found glucose concentration values with a greater dispersion, ranging from 270 to 510 mg/dL. Moreover, in the HFD + STZ group, the AUC value of the insulin tolerance test (ITT) was found to be remarkably augmented by 6.2-fold higher than in healthy animals (33,687.0 ± 1705.7 mg/dL/min vs. 5469.0 ± 267.6, respectively), indicating insulin resistance (IR). In contrast, a more moderate AUC value was observed in the STZ group (19,059.0 ± 3037.4 mg/dL/min) resulting in a value 2.5-fold higher than the average exhibited by the control group. After microarray experiments on liver tissue from all animals, we analyzed genes exhibiting a fold change value in gene expression <-2 or >2 (p-value <0.05). We found 27,686 differentially expressed genes (DEG), identified the top 10 DEGs and detected 849 coding genes that exhibited opposite expression patterns between both diabetes models (491 upregulated genes in the STZ model and 358 upregulated genes in HFD + STZ animals). Finally, we performed an enrichment analysis of the 849 selected genes. Whereas in the STZ model we found cellular pathways related to lipid biosynthesis and metabolism, in the HFD + STZ model we identified pathways related to immunometabolism. Some phenotypic differences observed in the models could be explained by transcriptomic results; however, further studies are needed to corroborate these findings. Our data confirm that the STZ and the HFD + STZ models are reliable experimental models for human T1D and T2D, respectively. These results also provide insight into alterations in the expression of specific liver genes and could be utilized in future studies focusing on diabetes complications associated with impaired liver function.

