Feeding History and Obese‐Prone Genotype Increase Survival of Rats Exposed to a Challenge of Food Restriction and Wheel Running
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We hypothesized that obese-prone genotype and history of food restriction confer a survival advantage to genetically obese animals under environmental challenge. Male juvenile JCR:LA-cp rats, obese-prone and lean-prone, were exposed to 1.5 h daily meals and 22.5-h voluntary wheel running, a procedure inducing activity anorexia (AA). One week before the AA challenge, obese-prone rats were freely fed (obese-FF), or pair fed (obese-PF) to lean-prone, free-feeding rats (lean-FF). Animals were removed from protocol at 75% of initial body weight (starvation criterion) or after 14 days (survival criterion). AA challenge induced weight loss in all rats, but percent weight loss was more rapid and sustained in lean-FF rats than in obese-FF or obese-PF animals (P < 0.04). Weight loss was significantly higher in obese-FF rats than obese-PF rats, 62% of which achieved survival criterion and stabilized with zero weight loss. Obese-PF rats survived longer, on average (12.0 ± 1.1 day) than obese-FF (8.2 ± 1.1 day) and lean-FF rats (3.5 ± 0.2 day) (P < 0.02). Wheel running increased linearly in all groups; lean-FF increased more rapidly than obese-FF (P < 0.05); obese-PF increased at an intermediate rate (P < 0.02), and those rats that survived stabilized daily rates of wheel running. Prior food restriction of juvenile obese-prone rats induces a survival benefit beyond genotype, that is related to achievement of homeostasis. This metabolic adaptive process may help explain the development of human obesity in the presence of an unstable food environment which subsequently transitions to an abundant food supply.
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".