Effect of low-protein diet and protein supplementation on the expressions of TNF-α, TNFR-I, and TNFR-II in organs and muscle of LPS-injected rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies had shown that increasing energy intake in anorexic TNF-alpha-treated rats increased morbidity due to stabilization of TNF activity by soluble and membrane TNF receptors (TNFR). Although protein supplementation reduces septic morbidity, its effect on TNF and TNFR is unknown. To determine the effect of low protein intake and supplementation on TNF and TNFR, 30 male Wistar rats weighing 250 g were fed a liquid defined-formula diet for 10 days and randomly allocated to 1) controls (C; n = 6), receiving normal energy and protein energy density of 0.047 MJ/60 ml + normal saline (NS); 2) low protein (LP; n = 6), receiving normal energy but a reduced protein-energy density of 0.012 MJ/60 ml + LPS; 3) refeeding (RF; n = 6), initially depleted on low-protein diet (10 days) and then repleted on normal protein (10 days) while receiving LPS; and 4) pair fed (P-F; n = 12), individual P-F rats being paired with individual LP or RF rats receiving NS. Protein and mRNA expression of TNF-alpha, TNFR-I, and TNFR-II in liver, spleen, and gastrocnemius were measured by Western blot and RT-PCR, respectively. In liver, the changes in TNF-alpha, TNFR-I, and TNFR-II were translational, whereas in spleen the effects were due to a combination of transcription and translation. In gastrocnemius, the effects were transcriptional/translational for TNFRs. In contrast, TNF-alpha mRNA was significantly increased, but TNF-alpha protein expression was reduced in LP rats compared with C and RF groups. In conclusion, protein deficiency in endotoxic rats increases the expression of TNFR-I and TNFR-II in all organs studied and TNF-alpha in selected ones. This increase is suppressed by refeeding protein. A differential pattern between translation and transcription of TNF-alpha and its receptors is present. Our data suggest that protein restriction may be deleterious in sepsis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".