High Intakes of [6S]-5-Methyltetrahydrofolic Acid Compared with Folic Acid during Pregnancy Programs Central and Peripheral Mechanisms Favouring Increased Food Intake and Body Weight of Mature Female Offspring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supplementation with [6S]-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid (MTHF) is recommended as an alternative to folic acid (FA) in prenatal supplements. This study compared equimolar gestational FA and MTHF diets on energy regulation of female offspring. Wistar rats were fed an AIN-93G diet with recommended (2 mg/kg diet) or 5-fold (5X) intakes of MTHF or FA. At weaning, female offspring were fed a 45% fat diet until 19 weeks. The 5X-MTHF offspring had higher body weight (>15%), food intake (8%), light-cycle energy expenditure, and lower activity compared to 5X-FA offspring (p < 0.05). Both the 5X offspring had higher plasma levels of the anorectic hormone leptin at birth (60%) and at 19 weeks (40%), and lower liver weight and total liver lipids compared to the 1X offspring (p < 0.05). Hypothalamic mRNA expression of leptin receptor (ObRb) was lower, and of suppressor of cytokine signaling-3 (Socs3) was higher in the 5X-MTHF offspring (p < 0.05), suggesting central leptin dysregulation. In contrast, the 5X-FA offspring had higher expression of genes encoding for dopamine and GABA- neurotransmitter receptors (p < 0.01), consistent with their phenotype and reduced food intake. When fed folate diets at the requirement level, no differences were found due to form in the offspring. We conclude that MTHF compared to FA consumed at high levels in the gestational diets program central and peripheral mechanisms to favour increased weight gain in the offspring. These pre-clinical findings caution against high gestational intakes of folates of either form and encourage clinical trials examining their long-term health effects when consumed during pregnancy.
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".