ライフサイエンスコーパス: ad libitum fed

1 energy deplete (food restricted) or replete (ad libitum fed).

2 operated animals who were either pair-fed or ad libitum-fed.

3 mpared with saline controls in both the AGRP ad libitum fed (21 +/- 8% of saline control; P < 0.01) a

4 in the brain frontal cortex of 12-month-old ad libitum fed, 26-month-old ad libitum fed, and 26-mont

5 month-old ad libitum fed (6AL), 26-month-old ad libitum fed (26AL), and 26-month-old calorie-restrict

6 predominately Type II fiber), of 6-month-old ad libitum fed (6AL), 26-month-old ad libitum fed (26AL)

7 r 30 months developed 70% fewer lesions than ad libitum-fed, age and sex matched controls.

8 Following injection, animals were ad libitum fed AIN-93G diet containing 0.00%, 0.02%, or

9 vely low dose of cocaine (7.0mg/kg, i.p.) in ad libitum fed (AL) and FR rats and take several brain r

10 Rats were assigned to either an ad libitum fed (AL) group or a food restricted (FR) grou

11 motor activity did not differ between FR and ad libitum fed (AL) rats, while vertical activity was gr

12 no differences were observed between FR and ad libitum fed (AL) rats.

13 n skin collagen could predict longevities in ad libitum-fed (AL) and caloric restricted (CR) mice.

14 mpared with saline controls in both the AGRP ad libitum fed and AGRP pair-fed groups (3.5 +/- 0.3 [sa

15 ment 2, these compounds were administered to ad libitum fed and food-restricted rats whose LHSS behav

16 rain Fos-like immunoreactivity (FLI) between ad libitum fed and food-restricted rats.

17 ves to heat stress compared to thermoneutral ad libitum fed and thermoneutral feed-restricted counter

18 nd the adjacent cortical areas of 7 Control (ad libitum)-fed and 6 CR male rhesus macaques using immu

19 mRNA and protein expression were measured in ad libitum-fed and calorie-restricted rats at ages 2, 6,

20 of nutrient-sensing HBP with age in both old ad libitum-fed and calorie-restricted rats.

21 Liver sections from aging ad libitum-fed and diet-restricted B6C3F1 male mice were

22 In both ad libitum-fed and food-restricted male Sprague Dawley r

23 nonobese model, we also treated prediabetic, ad libitum-fed and pair-fed Lean-huIAPP transgenic males

24 of 12-month-old ad libitum fed, 26-month-old ad libitum fed, and 26-month-old calorie-restricted (CR)

25 n liver (D16 and D19) and placenta (D19), in ad libitum fed animals (P < 0.05).

26 tly increased food intake and body weight in ad libitum fed animals compared with saline-treated cont

27 time showed a delayed adaptation compared to ad libitum fed animals, in terms of the similarity in 24

28 in the programmed feeding model, but not in ad libitum-fed animals, supports the concept that the pr

29 ssay, as compared with those in pair-fed and ad libitum-fed animals.

30 se was not observed in previous studies with ad libitum-fed animals.

31 with refeeding to levels similar to those of ad libitum-fed animals.

32 administered ROSI increases AgRP and NPY in ad libitum-fed animals; (4) whether intraperitoneally ad

33 ody temperature was significantly reduced in ad-libitum-fed ATF4 BKO mice, which correlated with Fgf2

34 y acids to fatty acids and ketones, and that ad libitum-fed carbohydrate-restricted diets lead to app

35 ntributing to BAT thermogenic capacity under ad libitum-fed conditions.

36 r maintains normal GH output under long-term ad libitum-fed conditions.

37 nsive rats (n=25) were assigned to either an ad libitum fed control group (AL) or food restricted gro

38 as occurring in 40% ER rats in comparison to ad libitum fed control rats or 40% ER rats that were ene

39 arcinomas were evaluated from rats that were ad libitum fed (control), 40% ER, or 40% ER but energy r

40 of age-related methylation drift compared to ad libitum-fed controls such that their blood methylatio

41 of which occurred in oocytes of age-matched ad libitum-fed controls.

42 e in subcutaneous adipose tissue compared to ad-libitum fed controls.

43 In particular, the responses of ad libitum-fed, diet-induced obese and fasted mice to th

44 - 4.9% (P < 0.05) compared with offspring of ad libitum fed ewes.

45 ve groups: ad libitum-fed sedentary control, ad libitum-fed exercise (AL+Exe), exercise but pair-fed

46 , and plasma leptin was also observed in the ad libitum fed group.

47 For this purpose, we trained ad libitum-fed male Wistar rats in a differential reinfo

48 Compared with 26-mo-old ad libitum fed mice, the T cells derived from age-matche

49 frequency than CD27(-)CD11b(+) NK cells from ad libitum fed mice.

50 onsumed approximately 30% more calories than ad libitum-fed mice at 27 degrees C, but there was no di

51 Around 42% of ad libitum-fed mice exhibited a helping behavior, as evi

52 In contrast, ad libitum-fed mice housed at 22 degrees C consumed appr

53 ocyte-specific p53 ablation in sham-operated ad libitum-fed mice impaired glucose homeostasis, increa

54 Here we demonstrate in ad libitum-fed mice that liquid carbohydrate loading for

55 in GST-II-positive hepatocytes, 24-month-old ad libitum-fed mice were introduced to 40% diet restrict

56 In ad libitum-fed mice, GHR ablation in LHA neurons did not

57 on, and IgG extravasation in the thalamus of ad libitum-fed mice.

58 mponents of metabolic pathways in liver from ad libitum-fed mice.

59 e lipid parameters were 17% to 20% higher in ad libitum-fed obese than in pair-fed obese group.

60 was 1-1.5% new cells per day, whereas obese ad libitum-fed obob mice exhibited markedly higher fract

61 Tissue from young (3-4 months) ad libitum-fed, old (30-32 months) restricted (35% and 5

62 Six month-old ad libitum-fed or dietary restricted C57BL/6 mice receiv

63 Control ad libitum-fed or DR mice received an unlimited amount,

64 7: 272 +/- 6 [saline] vs. 319 +/- 8 g [AGRP ad libitum fed]; P < 0.001).

65 l as NK cell activity, in the splenocytes of ad libitum-fed, pair-fed, and ethanol-fed Sprague Dawley

66 zed the Fischer 344 rat model of aging under ad libitum-fed (rapid aging) and calorie-restricted (slo

67 c injections of either glucose or insulin in ad libitum fed rats also resulted in an increase in ACh

68 changes in apolipoprotein B-lipoproteins in ad libitum fed rats and mice maintained in a 12-h photop

69 energy metabolism and pituitary function in ad libitum fed rats and rats administered AGRP and then

70 insulin treatment) elevation of threshold in ad libitum fed rats and, more transiently, reversed the

71 eriment 3, chronic i.c.v. leptin infusion in ad libitum fed rats decreased food intake and body weigh

72 By using parotid lobules from ad libitum fed rats stimulated with low doses of carbach

73 amygdala (CEA), naltrexone increased FLI in ad libitum fed rats, exclusively.

74 ural requirements for ingestion analgesia in ad libitum fed rats.

75 gnated CR35 and CR50, respectively), and old ad libitum-fed rats (29 months) was studied.

76 imicking of these fasting-induced effects in ad libitum-fed rats after GLP-1 receptor antagonism sugg

77 we infused saline or leptin for 7 days into ad libitum-fed rats and compared these with saline-infus

78 ted by our finding that the drug response in ad libitum-fed rats and the deprivation response are exp

79 Gene expression changes during aging in ad libitum-fed rats are largely prevented by CR, and neu

80 Rather, ad libitum-fed rats developed glomerular enlargement ove

81 Ad libitum-fed rats developed proteinuria and glomerulos

82 s: food-deprived rats given standard chow or ad libitum-fed rats given a palatable chocolate shake.

83 rved at either level of GK overexpression in ad libitum-fed rats relative to fed controls.

84 so was present in urine, particularly of old ad libitum-fed rats with high tissue Cp expression.

85 In ad libitum-fed rats, Cp mRNA expression increased six-fo

86 mediating feeding responses in nondeprived, ad libitum-fed rats.

87 activate PrRP and anterior vlBST neurons in ad libitum-fed rats.

88 ssigned to one of the following five groups: ad libitum-fed sedentary control, ad libitum-fed exercis

89 ll intestine and colon than in the fasted or ad libitum-fed states, demonstrating that post-fast refe

90 (3.5 +/- 0.3 [saline] vs. 2.7 +/- 0.4 [AGRP ad libitum fed] vs. 2.1 +/- 0.2 ng/ml [AGRP pair-fed]; P