Effects of food restriction and cold temperature on energy metabolism
At room temperature, FR-80% of
A. chevrieri were acclimated to 7 day, the survival rate was 100%. But FR-80% group under cold acclimation,
A. chevrieri died on day 5 and survival rate was 60% on day 7. Temperature had significant effect on body mass in
A. chevrieri under FR- 80% acclimation, body mass in FR-80% and warm group decreased 8.46% than that of on day 0 and body mass in FR-80% and cold group decreased 12.9% than that of on day 0 (Fig 1). Food intake, RMR and NST increased at 4 weeks after cold acclimation, which were significantly higher than that in warm temperature group (Food intake:
F1,18= 8.39,
P<0.01; RMR:
F1,18= 3.69,
P<0.05, Fig 2A; NST:
F1,18= 8.96,
P<0.01, Fig 2B). After 7day of FR-80% acclimation, RMR and NST in cold group were also higher than that of warm group (RMR:
F1,14= 4.58,
P<0.01, Fig 2A; NST:
F1,14= 9.54,
P<0.01, Fig 2B). On day 7, the protein content of mitochondria and COX activity in BAT were significant higher than that of warm group (protein content of mitochondria:
F1,14= 3.21,
P<0.05, Fig 2C; COX activity:
F1,14= 3.81,
P<0.05, Fig 2D).
Temperature is one of the important environmental factors that affect metabolic rate
(Wang et al., 2006). Small mammals domesticated in cold condition may increase their metabolic rate (Klingenspor, 2003;
Tang et al., 2009; Chi and Wang, 2011). In the present study, cold acclimation increased RMR significantly in
A. chevrieri, which was consistent with the increase of food intake. Despite the cold acclimation increased food intake, but body mass in FR-80% and cold group decreased 12.9% than that of on day 0, the survival rate was only 60%, suggesting that cold temperature acclimation increased metabolism levels, resulting in lower tolerance of animals to food restriction, which is consistent with the prediction that higher level of metabolic rate may be the main reason for low tolerance to food restriction in
A. chevrieri. The reason why
A. chevrieri exhibit low tolerance to food restriction is uncertain. At the interspecific level, the researchers compared the metabolic levels of
A. chevrieri with other rodents, which was found that
A. chevrieri had smaller size and higher metabolic level
(Zhu et al., 2008). A large number of studies showed that higher metabolic rate means higher demand for energy, so they need to increase food intake to supplement the metabolic energy expenditure, compared with the larger animals, the metabolic rate is higher and more easily influenced by food shortages, higher metabolic rate in smaller mammals were more likely to be affected by food shortage
(Zhao et al., 2012).
Effects of food restriction and metabolic level on energy metabolism
Before the experiment, food intake between HR and LR groups had significant differences, which was significantly higher in HR than that in LR (
F1,18=10.36,
P<0.01). On day 0, RMR in HR was 22.13% higher that of LR (Table 1). FR-80% of
A. chevrieri were acclimated to 14 d,
A. chevrieri appeared died both in two groups, survival rate were 80% and 90% in HR and LR groups, respectively. However, FR-80% acclimation on day 14 had no effect on body mass, carcass mass, body fat mass, NST, the protein content of mitochondria and COX activity in BAT and liver. On day 14, RMR in HR was also significantly higher that of LR (Table 1).
There were interspecific differences in metabolic rates, and also had individual differences at the intraspecific level
(Savsani et al., 2015). “Metabolism switch hypothesis” pointed that animals can regulate their metabolic rates under a chronic food shortage by reducing metabolic levels (Merkt and Taylor, 1994). Many studies have found that food shortage leads to a significant reduction in metabolism
(Hambly et al., 2007; Zhao et al., 2012). In the present study, there were significant differences in RMR between individuals, food restriction decreased RMR significantly in HR group. Similar to
A. chevrieri, food restriction reduced metabolic rate in
Meriones crassus, which was consistent with “metabolism switch hypothesis”
(Gutman et al., 2007). LR group had lower food intake, but food restriction did not decrease its RMR significantly, suggesting that food intake is not enough to compensate for energy expenditure, so
A. chevrieri were in the state of negative energy balance.