MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4293100567 · doi:10.1101/2022.03.20.485051

Glucagon Receptor Signaling at White Adipose Tissue Does Not Regulate Lipolysis

2022· preprint· en· W4293100567 on OpenAlexafffund
Anastasiia Vasileva, Tyler Marx, Jacqueline L. Beaudry, Jennifer H. Stern

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic function and diabetes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institutes of HealthDiabetes Canada
KeywordsLipolysisGlucagon receptorInternal medicineGlucagonEndocrinologyWhite adipose tissueGlucose homeostasisAdipose tissueAdipocyteBiologyChemistryInsulinInsulin resistanceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective Although the physiologic role of glucagon receptor signaling in the liver is well defined, the impact of glucagon receptor (Gcgr) signaling at white adipose tissue (WAT) continues to be debated. While numerous studies propose glucagon stimulates WAT lipolysis, we lack evidence that physiological concentrations of glucagon regulate WAT lipolysis. Glucagon receptor antagonists are proposed as a treatment to lower blood glucose in people with type 2 diabetes, yet concerns on how these treatments may affect lipid homeostasis have led to questions regarding the potential safety and efficacy of such therapeutics. Tight regulation of adipose tissue lipolysis is critical for whole body lipid homeostasis. In turn, we used WAT Gcgr knockout mice to determine if glucagon regulates lipolysis at WAT in the mouse. Methods We assessed the effects of fasting and acute exogenous glucagon administration in wildtype C57BL/6J and Gcgr Adipocyte+/+ vs Gcgr Adipocyte-/- mice. Using an ex vivo lipolysis protocol, we further examined the direct effects of glucagon on physiologically (fasted) and pharmacologically stimulated lipolysis. Results Adipocyte Gcgr expression did not affect fasting induced lipolysis or hepatic lipid accumulation in lean or diet induced obese (DIO) mice. Acute glucagon administration did not affect serum non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA), leptin, or adiponectin concentration, but did increase serum glucose and FGF21, regardless of genotype. Glucagon did not affect ex vivo lipolysis in explants from either Gcgr Adipocyte+/+ or Gcgr Adipocyte-/- mice. Gcgr expression did not affect fasting-induced or isoproterenol-stimulated lipolysis from WAT explants. Moreover, glucagon receptor signaling at WAT does not affect body weight or glucose homeostasis in lean or DIO mice. Conclusions We have established that glucagon does not regulate WAT lipolysis, either directly or indirectly. Unlike the crucial role of hepatic glucagon receptor signaling in maintaining glucose and lipid homeostasis, we observed no metabolic consequence of WAT glucagon receptor deletion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.215 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicPancreatic function and diabetes→French-language works237,207→