The mammalian insulin antagonist <scp>S961</scp> does not exhibit insulin receptor antagonism in rainbow trout <i>in vivo</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to their reported 'glucose-intolerant' phenotype, rainbow trout have been the focus of comparative studies probing underlying endocrine mechanisms at the organismal, tissue and molecular level. A particular focus has been placed on the investigation of the comparative role of insulin, an important glucoregulatory hormone, and its interaction with macronutrients. A limiting factor in the comparative investigation of insulin is the current lack of reliable assays to quantify circulating mature and thus bioactive insulin. To circumvent this limitation, tissue-specific responsiveness to postprandial or exogenous insulin has been quantified at the level of post-translational modifications of cell signalling proteins. These studies revealed that the insulin responsiveness of these proteins and their post-translational modifications are evolutionarily highly conserved and thus provide useful and quantifiable proxy indices to investigate insulin function in rainbow trout. While the involvement of specific branches of the intracellular insulin signalling pathway (e.g., mTor) in rainbow trout glucoregulation have been successfully probed through pharmacological approaches, it would be useful to have a functionally validated insulin receptor antagonist to characterize the glucoregulatory role of the insulin receptor pathway in its entirety for this species. Here, we report two separate in vivo experiments to test the ability of the mammalian insulin receptor antagonist, S961, to efficiently block insulin signalling in liver and muscle in response to endogenously released insulin and to exogenously infused bovine insulin. We found that, irrespective of the experimental treatment or dose, activation of the insulin pathway in liver and muscle was not inhibited by S961, showing that its antagonistic effect does not extend to rainbow trout.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".