MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023801938 · doi:10.1111/acel.12151

<scp>SIRT</scp>1 but not its increased expression is essential for lifespan extension in caloric‐restricted mice

2013· article· en· W2023801938 on OpenAlexaff
Evi M. Mercken, Jia Hu, Susan M. Krzysik-Walker, Min Wei, Ying Li, Michael W. McBurney, Rafael de Cabo, Valter D. Longo

Bibliographic record

VenueAging Cell · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsBiologyCalorie restrictionCaloric theoryLife extensionLongevityWild typeHeterozygote advantageExtension (predicate logic)EndocrinologyInternal medicineGeneticsAlleleGeneMedicineMutant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The SIRT1 deacetylase is one of the best-studied putative mediators of some of the anti-aging effects of calorie restriction (CR), but its role in CR-dependent lifespan extension has not been demonstrated. We previously found that mice lacking both copies of SIRT1 displayed a shorter median lifespan than wild-type mice on an ad libitum diet. Here, we report that median lifespan extension in CR heterozygote SIRT1(+/-) mice was identical (51%) to that observed in wild-type mice, but SIRT1(+/-) mice displayed a higher frequency of certain pathologies. Although larger studies in additional genetic backgrounds are needed, these results provide strong initial evidence for the requirement of SIRT1 for the lifespan extension effects of CR, but suggest that its high expression is not required for CR-induced lifespan extension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations111
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAging CellSame topicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsFrench-language works237,207