Methionine Restriction Partly Recapitulates the Sympathetically Mediated Enhanced Energy Expenditure Induced by Total Amino Acid Restriction in Rats.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Total amino acid (AA) restriction promotes hyperphagia and energy expenditure. We determined whether (i) methionine restriction mimics the effects of total AA restriction, (ii) methionine supplementation attenuates these responses, and iii) sympathetic signaling mediates such effects. Rats were injected with either vehicle (V) or 6-hydroxydopamine (S) to induce chemical sympathectomy, and then randomized to four diets: 16% AA (16AA), 5% AA (5AA), 16% AA-methionine (16AA-Met), and 5% AA+methionine (5AA+Met). Propranolol or ondansetron were injected to examine the role of sympathetic and serotonergic signaling, respectively. 5AA, 5AA+Met, and 16AA-Met increased the food conversion rate for 1–3 weeks in the V and S groups, and increased mean energy expenditure in V group,; the magnitude of these changes was attenuated in the S group. Propranolol decreased the energy expenditure of V16AA, V5AA, and V5AA+Met and of S5AA, S5AA+Met, and S16AA-Met, whereas ondansetron decreased the energy expenditure in only the S groups. Compared to 16AA, the other V groups had reduced body weights from days 7–11 onwards and decreased lean masses throughout the study and the other S groups had decreased body weights and lean masses from day 14 onwards. Total AA restriction enhanced the energy expenditure and reduced the weight and lean mass; these effects were partly recapitulated by methionine restriction and were sympathetically mediated.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".