Selective Mobilization of Saturated Fatty Acids in Isolated Adipocytes of Hibernating 13-Lined Ground Squirrels<i>Ictidomys tridecemlineatus</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fatty acids are not mobilized from adipocyte triacylglycerols uniformly but rather some are preferentially mobilized while others are preferentially retained. In many vertebrate species, the pattern of differential mobilization is determined by the physical and chemical properties of each fatty acid. Fatty acids with shorter chains and more double bonds tend to be more readily mobilized than others, a pattern observed both in whole-animal studies and in isolated adipocytes. Several hibernating species seem to break this pattern, however, and retain 18:2ω6 (linoleic acid) while mobilizing saturated fatty acids such as 18:0. We sought to confirm this pattern in adipocytes of a hibernator, the 13-lined ground squirrel Ictidomys tridecemlineatus, and to investigate mobilization patterns for the first time at hibernation temperature. We isolated adipocytes from summer active and winter torpid squirrels and incubated them with 1 μM norepinephrine at 4°C (7 h) and 37°C (90 min). We measured the proportion of each fatty acid in the adipose tissue and in the buffer at the end of incubation. Patterns of mobilization were similar in both seasons and incubation temperatures. Saturated fatty acids (18:0 and 16:0) were highly mobilized relative to the average, while some unsaturated fatty acids (notably, 18:1ω9 and 18:2ω6) were retained. We conclude that hibernators have unique mechanisms at the level of adipose tissue that preferentially mobilize saturated fatty acids. Additionally, we found that adipocytes from hibernating squirrels produced more glycerol than those from summer squirrels (regardless of temperature), indicating a higher lipolytic capacity in hibernating squirrels.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".