Increased Endurance Exercise Capacity Secondary to Liver Fatty Acid‐Binding Protein Ablation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two fatty acid‐binding proteins (FABPs) are abundantly expressed in proximal enterocytes, intestinal FABP (IFABP, FABP2) and liver FABP (LFABP, FABP2), both with high affinity for binding long chain fatty acids. We previously showed that LFABP and IFABP knockout mice have divergent phenotypes in response to high‐fat feeding, with LFABP −/− mice gaining more weight and body fat, and IFABP −/− mice remaining lean relative to wildtype (WT) mice. Interestingly, despite their obese phenotype, LFABP −/− mice showed signs of being metabolically healthy, with a similar glucose tolerance to WT mice regardless of their markedly greater fat mass and an increased endurance exercise performance. To explore this surprising exercise phenotype, here we focused on possible metabolic alterations in the skeletal muscle secondary to LFABP ablation. The results showed higher mitochondrial enzyme activities in LFABP −/− mouse muscle, along with an increased triglyceride level and decreased AMPK activity, indicating that the mice have abundant energy availability at rest, compared with WT mice. Upregulation of PGC1α and PPARα mRNA levels was also found, suggesting an induction of mitochondrial biogenesis and an adjustment in lipid utilization. These results suggest that although LFABP is not normally expressed in muscle, its ablation in liver and intestine appears to contribute to a higher mitochondrial content and efficiency in energy utilization in the skeletal muscle, leading to the higher endurance exercise capacity in the LFABP −/− mice. Support or Funding Information This work was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant DK‐38389 from NIDDK, and by funds from the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station (to J. S.).
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".