Elevated Arachidonic Acid Intakes Reduce Bone Mineral Content and Trabecular Volume in Growing Obese Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arachidonic acid (AA) is elevated in obesity and in fatty marrow. Whether elevated AA status has implications in bone growth and mineralization in obesogenic states is not clear. The objective was to assess the effect of AA on bone mass acquisition in diet‐induced obesity (DIO) during growth. Male Sprague Dawley rats (n=42, 4 wk, 89.8 ± 1.1g) were randomized to one of the following diets: control, high‐fat (HFD, 16.7% fat w/w), HFD + AA (1% w/w) for 6 wk. Body composition and bone mass were measured by in vivo micro‐computed tomography (μCT) at beginning and end of study. Repeated‐measures two‐way ANOVA with post‐hoc Tukey's HSD was used to test for group differences. Food intake in the control group was significantly greater (8.17%) than HFD groups, but there was no difference in total energy intake between groups. HFD+AA group had significantly greater % body fat (Table 1) and body weight gain (504 ± 12%) than HFD (495 ± 13%) and control (484 ± 11%) beginning from wk 4 of study. Total and trabecular bone mineral content (BMC) in whole body and lumbar spine (LS) 2‐4 were lower in HFD+AA vs HFD and control (Table 1). This was accompanied by reduced bone volume at LS, possibly explaining the higher whole body volumetric bone mineral density (vBMD). These results indicate that short term DIO with excess AA may adversely affect the trabecular bone compartment by decreasing bone mineral accretion and volume during growth. Whether this translates into reduced bone strength remains to be determined. CTRL HFD HFD,AA Whole body Body fat (%) 28.95 ± 0.85 a 31.13 ± 0.79 ab 31.97 ± 0.85 b Total vBMD (g/cm 3 ) 474.78 ± 4.03 a 485.86 ± 4.03 b 483.30 ± 4.17 b BMC (mg) 6828.95 ± 101.80 ab 6819.38 ± 101.80 a 6671.70 ± 105.64 b Trab vBMD (g/cm 3 ) 346.64 ± 4.58 a 363.95 ± 4.58 b 359.94 ± 4.75 ab BMC (mg) 2151.83 ± 49.05 ab 2201.17 ± 49.05 a 2118.49 ± 50.90 b Lumbar spine 2‐4 Total BMC (mg) 331.38 ± 7.13 ab 336.58 ± 7.58 a 308.55 ± 7.89 b Volume (cm 3 ) 0.84 ± 0.02 a 0.83 ± 0.02 ab 0.77 ± 0.02 b Trab BMC (mg) 140.33 ± 4.97 ab 144.86 ± 5.31 a 124.25 ± 5.36 b Volume (cm 3 ) 0.43 ± 0.01 a 0.42 ± 0.01 ab 0.39 ± 0.01 b
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".