Glucose Transporter Expression and Regulation Following a Fast in the Ruby-throated Hummingbird, <i>Archilochus colubris</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hummingbirds, subsisting almost exclusively on nectar sugar, face extreme challenges to blood sugar regulation. The capacity for transmembrane sugar transport is mediated by the activity of facilitative glucose transporters (GLUTs) and their localisation to the plasma membrane (PM). In this study, we determined the relative protein abundance of GLUT1, GLUT2, GLUT3, and GLUT5 via immunoblot using custom antibodies in whole-tissue and PM fractions of flight-muscle, heart, and liver of ruby-throated hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris). GLUTs examined were detected in nearly all tissues tested. Hepatic GLUT1 was minimally present in whole-tissue and absent in PM fractions. GLUT5 was expressed in flight-muscles at levels comparable to that of their liver, consistent with hummingbird flight-muscles’ hypothesised uniquely high fructose-uptake and oxidation capacity. To assess GLUT regulation, we fed ruby-throated hummingbirds 1M sucrose ad libitum for 24 hours followed by either 1 hour of fasting or continued feeding until sampling. We measured relative GLUT abundance and concentrations of circulating sugars. Blood fructose concentration in fasted hummingbirds declined (∼5 mM to ∼0.18 mM), while fructose-transporting GLUT2 and GLUT5 abundance did not change in PM fractions. Blood glucose concentrations remained elevated in fed and fasted hummingbirds (∼30 mM), while glucose-transporting GLUT1 and GLUT3 in flight muscle and liver PM fractions, respectively, declined in fasted birds. Our results suggest that glucose uptake capacity is dynamically reduced in response to fasting, allowing for maintenance of elevated blood glucose levels, while fructose uptake capacity remains constitutively elevated promoting depletion of blood total fructose within the first hour of a fast.
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".