Metabolic partitioning of sucrose and seasonal changes in fat turnover rate in ruby-throated hummingbirds (<i>Archilochus colubris</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hummingbirds fuel their high energy needs with the fructose and glucose in their nectar diets. These sugars are used to fuel both immediate energy needs and to build fat stores to fuel future fasting periods. Fasting hummingbirds can deplete energy stores in only hours and need to be continuously replacing these stores while feeding and foraging. If and how hummingbirds partition dietary fructose and glucose towards immediate oxidation versus fat storage is unknown. Using a chronic stable isotope tracer methodology, we examined if glucose or fructose are preferentially used for de novo lipogenesis in ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris.) Potential seasonal changes were correlated with variation in the overall daily energy expenditure. We fed ruby-throated hummingbirds sucrose-based diets enriched with 13C on either the glucose or the fructose portion of the disaccharide for 5 days. Isotopic incorporation into fat stores was measured via the breath 13C signature while fasting (oxidizing fat) during the winter and summer seasons. We found greater isotopic enrichment of fat stores when glucose was labelled compared to fructose, suggesting preference for glucose as a substrate for fatty acid synthesis. We also found a seasonal effect on fat turnover rate. Faster turnover rates occurred during the summer months when birds maintained lower body mass, fat stores and exhibited higher daily nectar intake compared to winter. This demonstrates that fat turnover rate can substantially vary with changing energy expenditure and body composition, however the partitioning of sucrose towards de novo fatty acid synthesis remains constant.
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".