Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41923302›Full record

ArticleJournal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle2026

Feeding Behaviour in the KPC Model of Pancreatic Cancer-Associated Cachexia: Alteration of Spontaneous and Evoked Feeding Behaviours.

Fateema Muzaffar, William F Colmers, Vickie E Baracos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cachexia, sarcopenia and muscle, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Fateema MuzaffarDepartment of Oncology, University of Alberta, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
William F ColmersDepartment of Pharmacology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Vickie E BaracosDepartment of Oncology, University of Alberta, Cross Cancer Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9609-1001

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe KPC mouse model of pancreatic cancer is gaining use in research, but detailed understanding of ingestive behaviour changes in this and other cachexia models is limited.

methodsMale C57BL/6 J mice (7 weeks) were maintained under standard feed (PicoLab5L0D) and housing conditions (12:12 h; Light:Dark). Spontaneous feeding was observed in a Comprehensive Lab Animal Monitoring System: meal size, frequency, intermeal intervals and satiety ratio (i.e., time between meals divided by kcal energy in the preceding meal). Feeding was observed at baseline and over time after intraperitoneal injection syngeneic KPC pancreatic adenocarcinoma cells. Separate cohorts of mice were used to study homeostatic feeding responses at baseline and on Day 14 after KPC injection (KPC_14). These responses were fasting-evoked refeeding, ghrelin injection (1 mg/kg) and lights-out cue.

resultsSpontaneous food intake declined by 50% by 14 days after tumour injection. At baseline, food intake was observed during 23 of 24 h daily; at KPC_14, hours without any food intake increased from 1 to 12 (p ≤ 0.0001). At KPC_14, intermeal intervals increased (light cycle: 60.5 ± 11.2 vs. 146.4 ± 19.6 min; p < 0.0001; dark cycle: 26.0 ± 3.8 vs. 42.0 ± 5.5 min; p = 0.0045), and the satiety ratio tripled (light cycle: 23.1 ± 5.9 vs. 69.4 ± 10.5 min/0.1 kcal; p < 0.0001; dark cycle: 11.3 ± 3.4 vs. 27.1 ± 5.0 min/0.1 kcal; p = 0.0028). By contrast, meal size and ingestion rate were unchanged. At KPC_14 mice showed reduced responses to homeostatic feeding cues. After 12-h starvation, refeeding intake during 4 h was 0.81 ± 0.3 g vs. 0.39 ± 0.19 g at KPC_14 (-52%, p = 0.02). Ghrelin response was also blunted 0.66 ± 0.19 g vs. 0.42 ± 0.27 g at KPC_14 (-36%, p = 0.005). Mice responded to lights-out with ~ 4 h of vigorous feeding, ingesting a total of 0.94 ± 0.2 g at baseline; this amount was reduced to 0.55 ± 0.3 g (-41%, p < 0.01) at KPC_14, predominantly due to a steep decline in feeding after the end of the first dark hour.

conclusionsMice with KPC show response to homeostatic feeding cues; however, these were of diminished amplitude and sustainability. Large increases in intermeal interval and satiety ratio were notable, with mice eating nothing at all for extended periods of time, consistent with enhanced satiety and/or a failure to generate signals sufficient to generate a new feeding event.

Indexed as

CachexiaFeeding BehaviorPancreatic NeoplasmsAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalEatingHumansMaleMiceMice, Inbred C57BLappetitecachexiacalorimetry, indirectdisease models, animalenergy metabolismfeeding behaviourghrelinmice, inbred C57BLpancreatic neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID41923302
PMCPMC13045440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.