## 3 Results
### Liver Weight, Hepatic Lipid Profiles and Hepatic Morphology  
Liver weight was significantly higher in the HFD group than in the ND group, and those in the NE and RU groups were similar to the HFD group (Figure 2A). Hepatic triglyceride and fatty acid contents were increased in the HFD group compared to the ND group. Meanwhile, the NE supplement significantly decreased hepatic triglyceride and fatty acid contents compared to the HFD group, while the RU group was not different from the HFD group (Figure 2B). However, there was no difference between NE and RU in those hepatic lipids contents. Moreover, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining analysis revealed that the size of hepatic lipid droplet was slightly decreased in the NE and RU groups compared to the HFD group (Figure 2C). As shown in Figure 2C(B), collagen fiber deposition (yellow color, arrow) around portal vein was observed in the HFD group, while there was a little fibrotic change in the NE and RU groups. There was no fibrotic change in the ND group. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **ND** & **HFD** & **NE** & **RU** \\ \hline TG (mmol/L) & 0.89 \(\pm\) 0.04 & 1.04 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.91 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.88 \(\pm\) 0.05 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ TC (mmol/L) & 3.82 \(\pm\) 0.10 & 6.43 \(\pm\) 0.30 ***\({}^{\text{b}}\) & 5.16 \(\pm\) 0.26 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 5.77 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) \\ FFA (mmol/L) & 0.70 \(\pm\) 0.03 & 0.82 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 0.67 \(\pm\) 0.03 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 0.61 \(\pm\) 0.04 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ HDL-C (mmol/L) & 1.67 \(\pm\) 0.07 & 2.57 \(\pm\) 0.21 ***\({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 2.25 \(\pm\) 0.11 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.19 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ nonHDL-C (mmol/L) & 2.16 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 3.86 \(\pm\) 0.37 ***\({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 2.91 \(\pm\) 0.22 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 2.58 \(\pm\) 0.19 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ AI & 1.33 \(\pm\) 0.09 & 1.84 \(\pm\) 0.51 & 1.31 \(\pm\) 0.11 & 0.83 \(\pm\) 0.06 \\ HTR (\%) & 43.76 \(\pm\) 1.90 & 40.86 \(\pm\) 3.71 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 44.02 \(\pm\) 1.97 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 55.23 \(\pm\) 1.88 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Apo A-I (mg/dL) & 25.83 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 23.80 \(\pm\) 0.26 ***\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 23.21 \(\pm\) 0.71 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 26.99 \(\pm\) 0.31 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ Apo B (mg/dL) & 5.31 \(\pm\) 0.25 & 7.14 \(\pm\) 0.47 ***\({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 6.41 \(\pm\) 0.30 \({}^{\text{ab}}\) & 5.68 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\text{a}}\) \\ Apo A-I / Apo B & 4.96 \(\pm\) 0.22 & 3.48 \(\pm\) 0.21 ***\({}^{\text{a}}\) & 3.67 \(\pm\) 0.16 \({}^{\text{a}}\) & 4.92 \(\pm\) 0.35 \({}^{\text{b}}\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Data are mean \(\pm\) S.E. Significant differences between HFD versus ND are indicated; \({}^{\text{a}}\) \(p<\) 0.05, **\(p<\) 0.01, ***\(p<\) 0.001.  
\({}^{\text{ab}}\) Means not sharing a common superscript are significantly different among the high-fat diet fed groups at \(p<\) 0.05. TG, triglyceride; TC, total cholesterol; FFA, free fatty acid; HDL-C, high density lipoprotein-cholesterol; nonHDL-C, non-high density lipoprotein-cholesterol; AI, atherogenic index, [TC)-(HDL-C)]/HDL-C; HTR, (HDL-C/TC) \(\times\) 100; Apo A-I, apolipoprotein A-I; Apo B, apolipoprotein B.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Effect of NE and RU supplementation for 16 weeks on plasma lipid profiles in C57 BL/6J mice fed high-fat diet. Figure 2: _Cont._Fasting Blood Glucose, Plasma Glucose, Insulin, Glucagon, and C-peptide Levels, Glucose Tolerance, Homeostatin Model Assessment-Insulin Resistance (HOMA-IR) and Pancreatic Immunohistochemistry Analysis  
Change of the fasting blood glucose concentration during the experimental period revealed that HFD led to increase in fasting blood glucose level compared to the ND group (Figure 3A). The NE supplement significantly lowered blood glucose level at 4 th, 8 th and 16 th week. The RU supplement also significantly decreased blood glucose level from the 8 th week. Result of glucose tolerance test and area under the graph curve (AUC) is as shown in Figure 3B,C.