Sex-dependent Depot Differences in Adipose Tissue Development and Function; Role of Sex Steroids
Lee MJ., Fried SK.
Narrative Review, published in J Obes Metab Syndr (2017) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- J Obes Metab Syndr (2017)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 31089514
- PMCID
- PMC6484911
- DOI
- 10.7570/jomes.2017.26.3.172
- Citations
- 60
Abstract (original English)
Men and women are different in their fat mass and distribution pattern. The gynoid-type fat distribution, accumulation in lower-body, is considered to be protective while the android-type accumulation in upper-body, both in abdominal subcutaneous and visceral depots, is detrimental. Sex-dependent depot differences in adipose metabolic and endocrine functions are thought to contribute to the sexual disparity in fat distribution as well as its association with cardiometabolic risks. Although molecular details have not been completely elucidated, available evidence shows that sex steroid hormones are important factors governing sexual dimorphism in adipose tissue distribution and hence, risks for metabolic diseases. We will review sex-dependent heterogeneities in adipose tissue properties that can link their depot-specific biology to metabolic complications in men and women. In addition, we will also review how sex steroids regulate adipose tissue biology, both development and functional characteristics, with emphasis on their depot-dependent actions.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.