Direct Comparison of Mice Null for Liver or Intestinal Fatty Acid-binding Proteins Reveals Highly Divergent Phenotypic Responses to High Fat Feeding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enterocyte expresses two fatty acid-binding proteins (FABP), intestinal FABP (IFABP; FABP2) and liver FABP (LFABP; FABP1). LFABP is also expressed in liver. Despite ligand transport and binding differences, it has remained uncertain whether these intestinally coexpressed proteins, which both bind long chain fatty acids (FA), are functionally distinct. Here, we directly compared IFABP(-/-) and LFABP(-/-) mice fed high fat diets containing long chain saturated or unsaturated fatty acids, reasoning that providing an abundance of dietary lipid would reveal unique functional properties. The results showed that mucosal lipid metabolism was indeed differentially modified, with significant decreases in FA incorporation into triacylglycerol (TG) relative to phospholipid (PL) in IFABP(-/-) mice, whereas LFABP(-/-) mice had reduced monoacylglycerol incorporation in TG relative to PL, as well as reduced FA oxidation. Interestingly, striking differences were found in whole body energy homeostasis; LFABP(-/-) mice fed high fat diets became obese relative to WT, whereas IFABP(-/-) mice displayed an opposite, lean phenotype. Fuel utilization followed adiposity, with LFABP(-/-) mice preferentially utilizing lipids, and IFABP(-/-) mice preferentially metabolizing carbohydrate for energy production. Changes in body weight and fat may arise, in part, from altered food intake; mucosal levels of the endocannabinoids 2-arachidonoylglycerol and arachidonoylethanolamine were elevated in LFABP(-/-), perhaps contributing to increased energy intake. This direct comparison provides evidence that LFABP and IFABP have distinct roles in intestinal lipid metabolism; differential intracellular functions in intestine and in liver, for LFABP(-/-) mice, result in divergent downstream effects at the systemic level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".