Adaptation to intermittent stress promotes maintenance of β-cell compensation: comparison with food restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intermittent restraint stress delays hyperglycemia in ZDF rats better than pair feeding. We hypothesized that intermittent stress would preserve beta-cell mass through distinct mechanisms from food restriction. We studied temporal effects of intermittent stress on beta-cell compensation during pre-, early, and late diabetes. Six-week-old obese male ZDF rats were restraint-stressed 1 h/day, 5 days/wk for 0, 3, 6, or 13 wk and compared with age-matched obese ZDF rats that had been food restricted for 13 wk, and 19-wk-old lean ZDF rats. Thirteen weeks of stress and food restriction lowered cumulative food intake 10-15%. Obese islets were fibrotic and disorganized and not improved by stress or food restriction. Obese pancreata had islet hyperplasia and showed evidence of neogenesis, but by 19 wk old beta-cell mass was not increased, and islets had fewer beta-cells that were hypertrophic. Both stress and food restriction partially preserved beta-cell mass at 19 wk old via islet hypertrophy, whereas stress additionally lowered alpha-cell mass. Concomitant with maintenance of insulin responses to glucose, stress delayed the sixfold decline in beta-cell proliferation and reduced beta-cell hypertrophy, translating into 30% more beta-cells per islet after 13 wk. In contrast, food restriction did not improve insulin responses or beta-cell hyperplasia, exacerbated beta-cell hypertrophy, and resulted in fewer beta-cells and greater alpha-cell mass than with stress. Thus, preservation of beta-cell mass with adaptation to intermittent stress is related to beta-cell hyperplasia, maintenance of insulin responses to glucose, and reductions in alpha-cell mass that do not occur with food restriction.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".