MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028643027 · doi:10.1159/000213741

THE EFFECT OF CALORIC RESTRICTION ON LIPOFUSCIN ACCUMULATION IN MOUSE BRAIN WITH AGE

2009· article· en· W2028643027 on OpenAlexaff
W.A.L. Moore, Valerie A. Davey, Richard Weindruch, R. L. Walford, Gwen O. Ivy

Bibliographic record

VenueGerontology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Brain Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLipofuscinCaloric theoryDentate gyrusEndocrinologyInternal medicineSenescenceBiologyBrain agingAgeingRatónHippocampusMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Caloric restriction (CR), has been shown to extend average and maximum lifespan in rodents and other animals as well as to delay a wide variety of manifestations of aging. The purpose of this study was to further elucidate the relationship between lipofuscin (LF) accumulation and the aging process by examining the effect of lifelong CR on LF accumulation in brain cells. Specifically, 1) we include age groups of CR (CR1 approximately equal to 90 kcal/wk and CR2 approximately equal to 58 kcal/wk) and ad libidum fed (AL; approximately 120 kcal/wk) mice including groups at maximum lifespan; 2) CR was the major dietary manipulation; 3) LF was identified using EM; 4) LF was quantified by areal measurement; and 5) the results were analyzed by inferential statistics. We have found that 1) LF increased with age and 2) that animals in the CR2 group had significantly less overall LF in the perikarya of the granule cells of the dentate gyrus when compared to CR1 or AL animals at equivalent ages. In addition, CR2 mice at maximum lifespan (45 mo.) had slightly less LF than did CR1 or AL mice at their maximum lifespans (36 mo.). Our results clearly demonstrate that CR (at 52%, but not 25% of AL diet) retards the overall accumulation of LF with time and, further, suggest that LF accumulation is not simply a linear function of age.

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 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 score0.322
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.264 · 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.

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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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