Maternal folic acid supplementation does not impact skeletal muscle function and metabolism in male and female CD-1 mouse offspring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Folic acid fortification of all white flour, enriched pasta, and cornmeal products became mandatory in Canada to reduce risk of neural tube defects at birth. Furthermore, Health Canada and the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada recommend women take daily prenatal folic acid supplements in addition to folic acid fortified foods during pregnancy. However, the influence of maternal folic acid supplementation on offspring development, specifically the highly abundant and metabolically active skeletal muscle, is currently unknown. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of supplemental folic acid (four times higher than normal dietary consumption), in utero and throughout suckling on muscle size, function, and metabolism in male and female CD-1 mouse offspring. The major findings were that maternal exposure to supplemental folic acid ( i) had no impact on postpartum growth rates or muscle mass in female and male offspring, ( ii) had no impact on skeletal muscle contractile kinetics in females and male offspring, and ( iii) increased maximal phosphofructokinase activity in extensor digitorum longus of female and male offspring. These findings suggest that exposure to folic acid supplementation in utero and throughout suckling at levels four times higher than recommended had minimal effect on skeletal muscle size, function, and metabolism regardless of sex. Future research is needed explore the underlying biological pathways and mechanisms affected by folic acid supplementation during pregnancy and lactation on offspring skeletal muscle tissue, specifically in humans.
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 | 0.000 | 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".