MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intestinal transport of monosaccharides and amino acids during postnatal development of mink

2000· article· en· W1945471693 on OpenAlexaff
Randal K. Buddington, Christiane Malo, Per Torp Sangild, Jan Elnif

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Syndromes and Imprinting
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmino acidMinkBiologyMethionineBiochemistryPhenylalanineLeucineBrush borderInternal medicineEndocrinologyChemistryVesicle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intestinal development is typically studied using omnivores. For comparative purposes, we examined an altricial carnivore, the mink (Mustela vison). In mink, intestinal dimensions increase up to 8 wk after birth and then remain constant (length) or decrease (mass) into maturity despite continuing gains in body mass. Rates of glucose and fructose transport decline after birth for intact tissues but increase for brush-border membrane vesicles (BBMV). Rates of absorption for five amino acids that are substrates for the acidic (aspartate), basic (lysine), neutral (leucine and methionine), and imino acid (proline) carriers increase between birth and 24 h for intact tissues before declining, but increase after 2 wk for BBMV. The proportion of BBMV amino acid uptake that is Na(+)-dependent increases during development but for aspartate is nearly 100% at all ages. Tracer uptake by BBMV can be inhibited by 100 mmol/l of unlabeled amino acid, except for lysine. BBMV uptake of the dipeptide glycyl-sarcosine does not differ between ages, is not Na(+) dependent, and is only partially inhibited by 100 mmol/l unlabeled dipeptide. Despite the ability to rapidly and efficiently digest high dietary loads of protein, rates of amino acid and peptide absorption are not markedly higher than those of other mammals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative PhysiologySame topicGenetic Syndromes and ImprintingFrench-language works237,207