Differing Functions of Liver and Intestinal‐Fatty Acid Binding Proteins: Examination of the LFABP/IFABP Double Knockout Mouse.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The intestinal enterocyte expresses two fatty acid‐binding proteins (FABP): intestinal‐ (IFABP; FABP2) and liver‐FABP (LFABP; FABP1). These proteins have similar tertiary structures, but display different mechanisms of long‐chain fatty acid (LCFA) transport, and some differences in ligand binding specificities. The individual functions of IFABP and LFABP in intestinal lipid absorption and metabolism are incompletely understood. We previously reported that ablation of these proteins in mice results in divergent phenotypes in response to high‐fat feeding; LFABP ‐/‐ mice gain more weight and fat mass than WT mice, while IFABP ‐/‐ mice are lean. In the present studies, we generated LFABP and IFABP double knockout mice (DKO) to study the effects of simultaneous ablation of these proteins. Male C57BL/6 (WT), IFABP ‐/‐ , LFABP ‐/‐ and DKO mice were fed 10 or 45 kcal% fat diets containing LCFA for 12 weeks. Interestingly, the phenotype of the DKO mice was integrated between those of the LFABP ‐/‐ and IFABP ‐/‐ mice, with body weight and fat mass that were between those found for the single knockouts. Remarkably, DKO mice display no evidence of lipid malabsorption, indicating that these proteins are not required for bulk uptake of FA into the intestine. Overall, simultaneous ablation of LFABP and IFABP does not reveal a dominant effect of either protein, but rather an additive effect of ablation of each of the proteins. The results suggest that IFABP and LFABP have different functions in intestinal lipid homeostasis, resulting in differential downstream alterations in systemic energy metabolism.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".