The addition of cysteine to the total sulphur amino acid requirement as methionine does not increase erythrocytes glutathione synthesis in the TPN fed human neonate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controversy exists as to whether the total parenteral nutrition (TPN) fed human neonate is capable of synthesizing adequate cysteine from methionine when the total sulphur amino acid (TSAA) is provided as methionine only. Our recent study, in which we determined the TSAA requirement as methionine only, provided evidence that the TPN fed human neonate is capable of synthesizing adequate cysteine from methionine; at least for protein synthesis. However, there is evidence that protein synthesis takes precedence over glutathione (GSH) synthesis when sulphur amino acid supply is low. The goal of this study was to determine whether GSH synthesis is maximized at a methionine intake adequate for protein synthesis in the TPN fed human neonate. We measured GSH concentration, fractional and absolute synthesis rate in 5 TPN fed post‐surgical human neonates in a repeated measures design. Each neonate received a cysteine free methionine adequate TPN for 3 d followed by a methionine adequate cysteine supplemented TPN for another 3 d and GSH kinetics measured on the 3rd d of each study period. The isotope used was [U‐13C2 ‐15N]glycine. Cysteine supplementation did not increase glutathione synthesis. Further studies in neonates on TPN for prolonged periods with evidence of TPN associated liver disease are required to determine if cysteine supplementation positively affects GSH synthesis under such conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".