Fuel use during glycogenesis in rainbow trout (<i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>Walbaum) white muscle studied<i>in vitro</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine fuel used during muscle glycogenesis in rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss using an in vitro muscle slice preparation to test the hypothesis that intracellular lactate is the major glycogenic substrate and the muscle relies upon extracellular substrates for oxidation. Fish were exhaustively exercised to reduce muscle glycogen content, muscle slices were taken from exhausted fish and incubated for 1 h in medium containing various substrates at physiological concentrations. 14C-labeled lactate, glycerol or palmitate was added and 14C incorporation into muscle glycogen and/or CO2 was measured. Lactate clearance in the absence of net glycogenesis suggests that when suitable oxidizable extracellular substrates were lacking, intracellular lactate was oxidized. Only muscle incubated in lactate, glycerol or palmitate synthesized glycogen, with the greatest synthesis in muscle incubated in lactate plus glycerol. The major fate of these extracellular substrates was oxidative, with lactate oxidized at rates 10 times that of palmitate and 100 times that of glycerol. Neither extracellular lactate nor glycerol contributed significantly to glycogenesis, with lactate carbon contributing less than 0.1% of the total glycogen synthesized, and glycerol less than 0.01%. There was 100 times more extracellular lactate-carbon incorporated into CO2 than into glycogen. In the presence of extracellular lactate, palmitate or glycerol, intracellular lactate was spared an oxidative fate, allowing it to serve as the primary substrate for in situ glycogenesis, with oxidation of extracellular substrates driving ATP synthesis. The primary fate of extracellular lactate is clearly oxidative, while that of intracellular, glycolytically derived lactate is glycogenic, which suggests intracellular compartmentation of lactate metabolism.
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".