Species Differences in Gastrointestinal Tract Glucose Transporters between Rainbow Trout ( <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i> ) and Nile Tilapia ( <i>Oreochromis niloticus</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metabolic differences in omnivore and carnivore glucose homeostasis are well established. However, differences in the gastrointestinal glucose transporers have not been well characterized. Here we assess the differences in electrogenic transport of D‐glucose along different sections of the intestine between Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ), a carnivorous fish and Nile tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus ), an omnivorous fish in Ussing chambers. The kinetics of glucose transport in pyloric caeca and midgut of trout were similar to the sodium‐dependent glucose transporter isoform 1 (SGLT1) in mammals, and the kinetics in colon resembled mammalian SGLT2. In contrast to trout, the kinetics in all three intestinal sections in tilapia resembled mammalian SGLT2. In addition, SGLT1 and SGLT2 inhibitors further confirm the locations of glucose transporters. In conclusion, trout has two types of SGLTs, a high affinity, low capacity transporter in pyloric caeca and midgut, and a low affinity, high capacity transporter in the colon. Tilapia has only one type of SGLT throughout the gut, which is a low affinity, high capacity transporter Support or Funding Information NSERC ‐ CRDPJ: 446912‐13 to LPW, MEL & MDD
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".