Differences in response to corticotropin-releasing factor after short- and long-term consumption of a high-fat diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We previously reported an exaggerated endocrine and weight loss response to stress in rats fed a high-fat (HF) diet for 5 days. Others report blunted stress-induced anxiety in rats made obese on a HF diet. Experiments described here tested whether sensitivity to stress-related peptides was changed in obese and nonobese HF-fed rats. Third ventricle infusion of corticotropin-releasing factor (CRF) in rats made obese on HF diet (40% kcal fat) produced an exaggerated hypophagia, which is thought to be mediated by CRF(2) receptors. Obese rats responded to a lower dose of CRF for a longer time than rats fed a low-fat (LF) diet (12% kcal fat). CRF-induced release of corticosterone, which is thought to be mediated by CRF(1) receptors, was not exaggerated in obese HF-fed rats. In contrast, rats fed HF diet for 5 days showed the same food intake and corticosterone response to CRF as LF-fed rats. CRF mRNA expression in the paraventricular nucleus of the hypothalamus was stimulated by mild stress (ip saline injection and placement in a novel cage) in LF-fed rats but not in rats fed HF diet for 5 days because of a nonsignificant increase in expression in nonstressed HF-fed rats. In addition, nonstressed levels of urocortin (UCN) I mRNA expression in the Edinger-Westphal nucleus were significantly inhibited in HF-fed rats. These data suggest that rats that have become obese on a HF diet show a change in responsiveness to stress peptides, whereas the increased stress response in nonobese HF-fed rats may be associated with changes in basal CRF and UCN I mRNA expression.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".