Deletion of mu opioid receptors reduces palatable solution intake in a mouse model of binge eating
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Binge eating in humans is driven by hedonic properties of food, suggesting that brain reward systems may contribute to this behaviour. We examined the role of mu opioid receptors (MOP) in binge eating by examining sweet solution intake in mice with genetic deletion of the MOP. Wildtype and MOP knockout mice had 4 hours access to food in the home cage combined with limited (4 hours) access to sucrose (17.1% w/v) or saccharin (0.09% w/v), or continuous (24 hours) access to sucrose. Only limited access groups exhibited binge intake, measured as increased solution consumption during the first hour. Knockout mice consumed less solution and food during the first hour as well as less food each day compared with wildtype mice. Limited access groups consumed more food and gained more weight than continuous access groups, and the effect was magnified in saccharin-consuming mice. Indeed, the increased food consumption in animals given limited access to saccharin was so excessive that caloric intake of this group was significantly higher than either of the sucrose groups (limited or continuous access). Within this group, females consumed more food per bodyweight than males, highlighting important sex differences in feeding behaviours under restricted access schedules.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".