Genetic Differences in Hypothalamic‐Pituitary‐Adrenal Axis Activity and Food Restriction‐induced Hyperactivity in Three Inbred Strains of Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used three inbred rat strains known for significant differences in the activity and reactivity of their hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis to stress [Fischer 344 (F344), Brown Norway (BN) and Lewis (Lew) rats] to search for a strain difference in the paradoxical increase in running activity induced by food restriction and to explore the role of the HPA axis in this behaviour. Rats were randomly assigned to either an ad lib sedentary group (AL), a control wheel activity group (ACT), a food restriction-induced hyperactivity group (FR-ACT) group (1.5 h/day ad lib food, 22.5 h/day ad lib wheel access) or a pair-fed group (FR). The BN and Lew rats reached the 25% body weight-loss criterion of FR-ACT (strain effect: F(2,132) = 45.58, P < 10-6) faster than the F344 strain due to higher food restriction-induced running activity (strain effect: F(2,65) = 17.43, P = 0.00001). FR and FR-ACT decreased thymus weight (marker of integrated HPA axis activation) in all strains. In Lew and BN strains, FR-ACT induced a further decrement on thymus weight compared to their FR group. Prefeeding corticosterone levels (15.00 h) increased during the study in BN and Lew FR-ACT rats, but not in F344. Total wheel turns were correlated to both final adipose weight (r = -0.49, P = 0.002) and thymus weight decrement (r = 0.59, P = 0.0001), emphasizing the relationship between fat mass and HPA axis activation in excessive running activity. Increased running in conditions of food restriction and HPA axis activation may be linked at the level of the central nervous system. However, the involvement of corticotrophin-releasing hormone, agouti-related peptide or cocaine- and amphetamine-regulated transcript in behavioural disturbances of FR-ACT rats was excluded (in situ hybridization). We propose that corticosterone may be the link between initial low levels of fat mass and/or rate of fat mass loss (peripheral energy stores) and increased wheel activity, favouring fueling through lipolysis and proteolysis and reinforcing the self starvation via reward mechanisms, thus establishing a deleterious vicious cycle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".