Lipid Formation and mRNA Expression of Key Adipogenic Genes in the Liver of Athens Canadian Random Breed and COBB Chicken Breeds During the Embryogenic Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study was designed in order to compare the lipid formation and the expression of key lipid metabolism genes in the livers between 2 types of chicken breeds during embryonic development. Methodology: A total of 36 fertilized eggs from Athens Canadian Random Breed (ACRB: Unselected chicken), breeder hens and commercial breeder hens (COBB: Selected for rapid growth) were incubated at 37.5°C and 60% relative humidity. Liver samples were collected at embryonic day (E)14 and 18. The mRNA expression of key adipogenic genes, such as adipocyte protein 2 (AP2) and peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPAR-ɣ), was detected using quantitative real time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Lipid droplet accumulation was also analyzed and compared using a histological method between COBB and ACRB on E14 and E18. Results: In this study, the histological analyses of COBB and ACRB livers showed no significant difference in the amount of lipid droplets accumulated. The mRNA expression of AP2 and PPAR-ɣ also was not significantly different between COBB and ACRB on E14 and E18. Conclusion: The results indicate that lipid formation in the liver during embryonic development is not affected by any genetic selection, suggesting that lipid metabolism changes between two chicken breeds could be initiated after hatch.
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 | 0.001 | 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".