ArticleJournal of neurochemistry2025
Comment on the Editorial "Embracing the Modern Biochemistry of Brain Metabolism".
Article in Journal of neurochemistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Where Is the Oxygen? The Mirage of Non-Oxidative Glucose Consumption During Brain Activity.NeuroSci · 2025Review
- Comment on the Editorial "Embracing the Modern Biochemistry of Brain Metabolism".Journal of neurochemistry · 2025Article
- Epistemological implications of astroglia scientific research.Frontiers in cellular neuroscience · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The editorial "Embracing the Modern Biochemistry of Brain Metabolism" takes exception with some critics who "persist in refuting intercellular metabolic exchange", singling out our recent review "A bird's-eye view of glycolytic upregulation in activated brain: The major fate of lactate is release from activated tissue, not shuttling to nearby neurons". However, it is important to note that our review did not refute intercellular metabolic exchange or shuttles. The review only refuted the concept that most of the incremental neuronal energy needed to support increased signaling during activation is supplied by an astrocyte-to-neuron lactate shuttle (ANLS) as originally proposed more than 30 years ago. Like the authors of the editorial, we also advocate for a rigorous research agenda, and we agree that elucidating the intricate and dynamic intercellular metabolic exchanges in brain tissue, beyond merely lactate, is essential to advance clinical and neuroprotective treatments. However, we reject their claim that our review represents "a minority school of thought" that "continues to dispute this concept without offering compelling scientific proof". The evidence refuting a major role of the ANLS is in our detailed, fact-based review for interested neuroscientists to read and evaluate for themselves.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.