MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997070245 · doi:10.1139/h05-124

Glucagon Receptors: Effect of Exercise and Fasting

2005· review· en· W1997070245 on OpenAlexaff
Carole Lavoie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Applied Physiology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism, Diabetes, and Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlucagonInternal medicineEndocrinologyGlucagon receptorReceptorEndurance trainingGlucose homeostasisChemistryHomeostasisHormoneBiologyMedicineInsulinInsulin resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One paradox of hormonal regulation during exercise is the maintenance of glucose homeostasis after endurance training despite a lower increase in plasma glucagon. One explanation could be that liver sensitivity to glucagon is increased by endurance training. Glucagon exerts its effect through a 62 KDa glycoprotein receptor, member of the G protein-coupled receptor. To determine whether changes with exercise in glucagon sensitivity occurred at the level of the glucagon receptor (GR), binding characteristics of hepatic glucagon receptors were ascertained in rat purified plasma membranes. Saturation kinetics indicated no difference in the dissociation constant or affinity of glucagon receptor, but a significantly higher glucagon receptor binding density in liver in endurance trained compared to untrained animals. Along with endurance training, it appears that fasting also changes GR binding characteristics. In animals fasting 24 hrs, a significant increase in glucagon receptor density was also reported. Although the exact mechanism remains unknown, there is no doubt that the liver can adapt to physiological stress through modulation of GR binding characteristics to enhance the hepatic glucose production responsiveness to glucagon.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Applied PhysiologySame topicMetabolism, Diabetes, and CancerFrench-language works237,207