Markers of macrophage infiltration and measures of lipolysis in human abdominal adipose tissues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We tested the hypothesis that high lipolytic responsiveness is related to increased expression of ATM genes in human adipose tissues. DESIGN AND METHODS: Omental (OM) and subcutaneous (SC) fat samples were obtained surgically in 46 women (age: 47.2 ± 4.7 years, BMI: 26.9 ± 5.2 kg/m(2) ). Body composition and fat distribution were measured using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and computed tomography. Lipolysis was measured by glycerol release in mature adipocytes isolated by collagenase digestion under basal-, isoproterenol (10(-5) M)-, and forskolin (10(-5) M)-stimulated conditions. Quantification of macrophage gene mRNA expression (CD11b, CD11c, and CD68) in whole adipose tissue was performed using real-time RT-PCR. RESULTS: SC CD68 mRNA abundance was positively associated with isoproterenol-stimulated lipolysis (r = 0.36, P < 0.05). This association remained significant after adjustment for total body fat mass (r = 0.34, P ≤ 0.05). In the OM depot, CD11b mRNA abundance was positively associated with isoproterenol-stimulated lipolysis (r = 0.42, P ≤ 0.005). This association remained significant after adjustment for total body fat mass (r = 0.41, P ≤ 0.01). In subgroup analyses, high lipolytic rates in SC adipocytes were related to increased whole tissue expression of CD68 and CD11b in this compartment, independent of adiposity and fat cell size (P ≤ 0.001 and P ≤ 0.05). High lipolytic rates in OM adipocytes were related to increased whole tissue OM expression of CD11b, independent of adiposity and fat cell size (P ≤ 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: High adipocyte lipolytic responsiveness is related to increased expression of ATM markers in the corresponding compartment, independent of adiposity and fat cell size.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".