Fatty acid binding protein is a major determinant of hepatic pharmacokinetics of palmitate and its metabolites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disposition kinetics of [(3)H]palmitate and its low-molecular-weight metabolites in perfused rat livers were studied using the multiple-indicator dilution technique, a selective assay for [(3)H]palmitate and its low-molecular-weight metabolites, and several physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. The level of liver fatty acid binding protein (L-FABP), other intrahepatic binding proteins (microsomal protein, albumin, and glutathione S-transferase) and the outflow profiles of [(3)H]palmitate and metabolites were measured in four experimental groups of rats: 1) males; 2) clofibrate-treated males; 3) females; and 4) pregnant females. A slow-diffusion/bound model was found to better describe the hepatic disposition of unchanged [(3)H]palmitate than other pharmacokinetic models. The L-FABP levels followed the order: pregnant female > clofibrate-treated male > female > male. Levels of other intrahepatic proteins did not differ significantly. The hepatic extraction ratio and mean transit time for unchanged palmitate, as well as the production of low-molecular-weight metabolites of palmitate and their retention in the liver, increased with increasing L-FABP levels. Palmitate metabolic clearance, permeability-surface area product, retention of palmitate by the liver, and cytoplasmic diffusion constant for unchanged [(3)H]palmitate also increased with increasing L-FABP levels. It is concluded that the variability in hepatic pharmacokinetics of unchanged [(3)H]palmitate and its low-molecular-weight metabolites in perfused rat livers is related to levels of L-FABP and not those of other intrahepatic proteins.
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".