Storage of Circulating Free Fatty Acid in Adipose Tissue of Postabsorptive Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Preferential upper-body fat gain, a typical male pattern, is associated with a greater cardiometabolic risk. Regional differences in lipolysis and meal fat storage cannot explain sex differences in body fat distribution. We examined the potential role of the novel free fatty acid (FFA) storage pathway in determining body fat distribution in postabsorptive humans and whether adipocyte lipogenic proteins (CD36, acyl-CoA synthetases, and diacylglycerol acyltransferase) predict differences in FFA storage. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Rates of postabsorptive FFA (palmitate) storage into upper-body subcutaneous (UBSQ) and lower-body subcutaneous (LBSQ) fat were measured in 28 men and 53 premenopausal women. Stable and radiolabeled palmitate tracers were intravenously infused followed by subcutaneous fat biopsies. Body composition was assessed with a combination of dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry and computed tomography. RESULTS: Women had greater FFA (palmitate) storage than men in both UBSQ (0.37 ± 0.15 vs. 0.27 ± 0.18 μmol · kg(-1) · min(-1), P = 0.0001) and LBSQ (0.42 ± 0.19 vs. 0.22 ± 0.11 μmol · kg(-1) · min(-1), P < 0.0001) fat. Palmitate storage rates were significantly greater in LBSQ than UBSQ fat in women, whereas the opposite was true in men. Plasma palmitate concentration positively predicted palmitate storage in both depots and sexes. Adipocyte CD36 content predicted UBSQ palmitate storage and sex-predicted storage in LBSQ fat. Palmitate storage rates per kilogram fat did not decrease as a function of fat mass, whereas lipolysis did. CONCLUSIONS: The FFA storage pathway, which had remained undetected in postabsorptive humans until recently, can have considerable, long-term, and sex-specific effects on body fat distribution. It can also offer a way of protecting the body from excessive circulating FFA in obesity.
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".