Circadian Clocks for All Meal-Times: Anticipation of 2 Daily Meals in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anticipation of a daily meal in rats has been conceptualized as a rest-activity rhythm driven by a food-entrained circadian oscillator separate from the pacemaker generating light-dark (LD) entrained rhythms. Rats can also anticipate two daily mealtimes, but whether this involves independently entrained oscillators, one 'continuously consulted' clock, cue-dependent non-circadian interval timing or a combination of processes, is unclear. Rats received two daily meals, beginning 3-h (meal 1) and 13-h (meal 2) after lights-on (LD 14:10). Anticipatory wheel running began 68±8 min prior to meal 1 and 101±9 min prior to meal 2 but neither the duration nor the variability of anticipation bout lengths exhibited the scalar property, a hallmark of interval timing. Meal omission tests in LD and constant dark (DD) did not alter the timing of either bout of anticipation, and anticipation of meal 2 was not altered by a 3-h advance of meal 1. Food anticipatory running in this 2-meal protocol thus does not exhibit properties of interval timing despite the availability of external time cues in LD. Across all days, the two bouts of anticipation were uncorrelated, a result more consistent with two independently entrained oscillators than a single consulted clock. Similar results were obtained for meals scheduled 3-h and 10-h after lights-on, and for a food-bin measure of anticipation. Most rats that showed weak or no anticipation to one or both meals exhibited elevated activity at mealtime during 1 or 2 day food deprivation tests in DD, suggesting covert operation of circadian timing in the absence of anticipatory behavior. A control experiment confirmed that daytime feeding did not shift LD-entrained rhythms, ruling out displaced nocturnal activity as an explanation for daytime activity. The results favor a multiple oscillator basis for 2-meal anticipatory rhythms and provide no evidence for involvement of cue-dependent interval timing.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".