Caloric Restriction Paradoxically Increases Adiposity in Mice With Genetically Reduced Insulin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Antiadiposity effects of caloric restriction (CR) are associated with reduced insulin/IGF-1 signaling, but it is unclear whether the effects of CR would be additive to genetically reducing circulating insulin. To address this question, we examined female Ins1(+/-):Ins2(-/-) mice and Ins1(+/+):Ins2(-/-) littermate controls on either an ad libitum or 60% CR diet. Although Igf1 levels declined as expected, CR was unable to reduce plasma insulin levels in either genotype below their ad libitum-fed littermate controls. In fact, 53-week-old Ins1(+/-):Ins2(-/-) mice exhibited a paradoxical increase in circulating insulin in the CR group compared with the ad libitum-fed Ins1(+/-):Ins2(-/-) mice. Regardless of insulin gene dosage, CR mice had lower fasting glucose and improved glucose tolerance. Although body mass and lean mass predictably fell after CR initiation, we observed a significant and unexpected increase in fat mass in the CR Ins1(+/-):Ins2(-/-) mice. Specifically, inguinal fat was significantly increased by CR at 66 weeks and 106 weeks. By 106 weeks, brown adipose tissue mass was also significantly increased by CR in both Ins1(+/-):Ins2(-/-) and Ins1(+/+):Ins2(-/-) mice. Interestingly, we observed a clear whitening of brown adipose tissue in the CR groups. Mice in the CR group had altered daily energy expenditure and respiratory exchange ratio circadian rhythms in both genotypes. Multiplexed analysis of circulating hormones revealed that CR was associated with increased fasting and fed levels of the obesogenic hormone, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide. Collectively these data demonstrate CR has paradoxical effects on adipose tissue growth in the context of genetically reduced insulin.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".