Hormonal regulation of glycogen metabolism in white muscle slices from rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>Walbaum)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To test the hypothesis that cortisol and epinephrine have direct regulatory roles in muscle glycogen metabolism and to determine what those roles might be, we developed an in vitro white muscle slice preparation from rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum). In the absence of hormones, glycogen-depleted muscle slices obtained from exercised trout were capable of significant glycogen synthesis, and the amount of glycogen synthesized was inversely correlated with the initial postexercise glycogen content. When postexercise glycogen levels were <5 micromol/g, about 4.3 micromol/g of glycogen were synthesized, but when postexercise glycogen levels were >5 micromol/g, only about 1.7 micromol/g of glycogen was synthesized. This difference in the amount of glycogen synthesized was reflected in the degree of activation of glycogen synthase. Postexercise glycogen content also influenced the response of the muscle to 10(-8) M epinephrine and 10(-8) M dexamethasone (a glucocorticoid analog). At high glycogen levels (>5 micromol/g), epinephrine and dexamethasone stimulated glycogen phosphorylase activity and net glycogenolysis, whereas at low (<5 micromol/g) glycogen levels, glycogenesis and activation of glycogen synthase activity prevailed. These data clearly indicate not only is trout muscle capable of in situ glycogenesis, but the amount of glycogen synthesized is a function of initial glycogen content. Furthermore, whereas dexamethasone and epinephrine directly stimulate muscle glycogen metabolism, the net effect is dependent on initial glycogen content.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".