Different functions of intestinal and liver-type fatty acid-binding proteins in intestine and in whole body energy homeostasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has long been known that mammalian enterocytes coexpress two members of the fatty acid-binding protein (FABP) family, the intestinal FABP (IFABP) and the liver FABP (LFABP). Both bind long-chain fatty acids and have similar though not identical distributions in the intestinal tract. While a number of in vitro properties suggest the potential for different functions, the underlying reasons for expression of both proteins in the same cells are not known. Utilizing mice genetically lacking either IFABP or LFABP, we directly demonstrate that each of the enterocyte FABPs participates in specific pathways of intestinal lipid metabolism. In particular, LFABP appears to target fatty acids toward oxidative pathways and dietary monoacylglycerols toward anabolic pathways, while IFABP targets dietary fatty acids toward triacylglycerol synthesis. The two FABP-null models also displayed differences in whole body response to fasting, with LFABP-null animals losing less fat-free mass and IFABP-null animals losing more fat mass relative to wild-type mice. The metabolic changes observed in both null models appear to occur by nontranscriptional mechanisms, supporting the hypothesis that the enterocyte FABPs are specifically trafficking their ligands to their respective metabolic fates.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".