Regulatory mechanisms involved in muscle and bone remodeling during refeeding in gilthead sea bream
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tolerance of fish to fasting offers a model to study the regulatory mechanisms and changes produced when feeding is restored. Gilthead sea bream juveniles were exposed to a 21-days fasting period followed by 2 h to 7-days refeeding. Fasting provoked a decrease in body weight, somatic indexes, and muscle gene expression of members of the Gh/Igf system, signaling molecules (akt, tor and downstream effectors), proliferation marker pcna, myogenic regulatory factors, myostatin, and proteolytic molecules such as cathepsins or calpains, while most ubiquitin-proteasome system members increased or remained stable. In bone, downregulated expression of Gh/Igf members and osteogenic factors was observed, whereas expression of the osteoclastic marker ctsk was increased. Refeeding recovered the expression of Gh/Igf system, myogenic and osteogenic factors in a sequence similar to that of development. Akt and Tor phosphorylation raised at 2 and 5 h post-refeeding, much faster than its gene expression increased, which occurred at day 7. The expression in bone and muscle of the inhibitor myostatin (mstn2) showed an inverse profile suggesting an inter-organ coordination that needs to be further explored in fish. Overall, this study provides new information on the molecules involved in the musculoskeletal system remodeling during the early stages of refeeding in fish.
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 | 0.000 | 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".