Regulation of Hepatic Follistatin Expression at Rest and during Exercise in Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Follistatin (FST) is a protein with numerous biological roles and was recently identified as an exercise-inducible hepatokine; however, the signals that regulate this are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to delineate potential endocrine factors that may regulate hepatic FST at rest and during exercise. METHODS: This study used four experiments. First, male and female C57BL/6J mice remained sedentary or were subjected to a single bout of exercise at moderate or exhaustive intensity with liver collected immediately post. Second, mice were injected with glucagon (1 mg·kg, 60 min), epinephrine (2 mg·kg, 30 min), glucagon then epinephrine, or saline. Third, mice were pretreated with propranolol (20-60 mg·kg, 30 min) before epinephrine injection. Fourth, glucagon receptor wild type (Gcgr) or knockout (Gcgr) mice were pretreated with saline or propranolol (20 mg·kg, 30 min) and were subjected to a single bout of exhaustive exercise with liver collected immediately post or after 2 h recovery. In all experiments liver FST mRNA expression was measured, and in experiment four FST protein content was measured. RESULTS: A single bout of treadmill exercise performed at an exhaustive but not moderate-intensity increased FST expression, as did injection of glucagon or epinephrine alone and when combined. Pretreatment of mice with propranolol attenuated the epinephrine-induced increase in FST expression. The exercise-induced increase in FST expression was attenuated in Gcgr mice, with no effect of propranolol. Gcgr mice had higher protein content of FST, but there was no effect of exercise or propranolol. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that both glucagon and epinephrine regulate hepatic FST expression at rest; however, only glucagon is required for the exercise-induced increase.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".