Author response: Sex-specific resilience of neocortex to food restriction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mammals have evolved sex-specific adaptations to reduce energy usage in times of food scarcity. These adaptations are well described for peripheral tissue, though much less is known about how the energy-expensive brain adapts to food restriction, and how such adaptations differ across the sexes. Here, we examined how food restriction impacts energy usage and function in the primary visual cortex (V1) of adult male and female mice. Molecular analysis and RNA sequencing in V1 revealed that in males, but not in females, food restriction significantly modulated canonical, energy-regulating pathways, including pathways associated with AMP-activated protein kinase (AMPK), peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARα), mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR), and oxidative phosphorylation. Moreover, we found that in contrast to males, food restriction in females did not significantly affect V1 ATP usage or visual coding precision (assessed by orientation selectivity). Decreased serum leptin is known to be necessary for triggering energy-saving changes in V1 during food restriction. Consistent with this, we found significantly decreased serum leptin in food-restricted males but no significant change in food-restricted females. Collectively, our findings demonstrate that cortical function and energy usage in female mice are more resilient to food restriction than in males. The neocortex, therefore, contributes to sex-specific, energy-saving adaptations in response to metabolic challenge.
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 | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.189 | 0.069 |
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".