The majority of brain palmitic acid is maintained by lipogenesis from dietary sugars and is augmented in mice fed low palmitic acid levels from birth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previously, results from studies investigating if brain palmitic acid (16:0; PAM) was maintained by either dietary uptake or de novo lipogenesis (DNL) varied. Here, we utilize naturally occurring carbon isotope ratios (13C/12C; δ13C) to uncover the origin of brain PAM. Additionally, we explored brain and liver fatty acid concentration, brain metabolomics, and behavior. BALB/c dams were equilibrated onto either a low PAM diet (LP; <2%) or high PAM diet (HP; >95%) prior to producing one generation of offspring. Offspring stayed on the respective diet of the dam until 15‐weeks of age, at which time the Open Field test was conducted, prior to euthanasia and tissue lipid extraction. Although liver PAM was lower in mice fed the LP diet, as well as female mice, brain PAM was not affected by diet or sex. Across mice of either sex on both diets, brain 13C‐PAM revealed compared to dietary uptake, DNL from dietary sugars contributed 68.8%–79.5% and 46.6%–58.0% to the total brain PAM pool by both peripheral and local brain DNL, and local brain DNL alone, respectively. DNL was augmented in mice fed the LP diet, and the ability to up‐regulate DNL in the liver or the brain depended on sex. Anxiety‐like behaviors were decreased in mice fed the LP diet and were correlated with markers of LP diet consumption including increased liver 13C‐PAM, warranting further investigation. Altogether, our results indicate that DNL from dietary sugars is a compensatory mechanism to maintain brain PAM in response to the LP diet. image
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".