Effects of feeding blends of grains naturally contaminated with Fusarium mycotoxins on brain regional neurochemistry of starter pigs and broiler chickens1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two experiments were conducted to compare the effects of feeding a blend of grains naturally contaminated with Fusarium mycotoxins on brain regional neurochemistry of starter pigs and broiler chickens. A polymeric glucomannan mycotoxin adsorbent (GM polymer) was also tested for its efficacy in preventing Fusarium mycotoxicoses. In Exp. 1, a total of 150 starter pigs (initial weight = 9.3+/-1.1 kg) were fed five diets (six pens of five pigs per diet) for 21 d. Diets (as-fed basis) included control, 17% contaminated grains, 24.5% contaminated grains, 24.5% contaminated grains + 0.2% GM polymer, and a pair-fed control for comparison with pigs receiving 24.5% contaminated grains. In Exp. 2,360 1-d-old male broiler chicks were fed for 56 d one of four diets containing the same source of contaminated grains as was fed to pigs. The diets included control, 37% contaminated grains, 58% contaminated grains, and 58% contaminated grains + 0.2% GM polymer (as fed). Neurotransmitter concentrations in the cortex, hypothalamus, and pons were analyzed by HPLC. The following brain neurotransmitter alterations (P < or = 0.05) were observed. In pigs, inclusion of contaminated grains in the diet 1) linearly increased cortex 5-hydroxytryptamine (5HT, serotonin) concentrations, while linearly decreasing hypothalamic tryptophan concentrations; 2) quadratically increased hypothalamic and pons 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5HIAA):5HT ratios, whereas the ratio decreased linearly in the cortex; and 3) linearly increased the ratio of hypothalamic 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid:dopamine (DA) concentrations, whereas hypothalamic norepinephrine (NRE) and pons DA and homovanillic acid (HVA) concentrations linearly decreased. In broiler chickens, inclusion of contaminated grains in the diet 1) linearly increased concentrations of 5HT and 5HIAA in the pons and 5HT concentrations in the cortex; 2) linearly decreased 5HIAA:5HT ratio; and 3) linearly increased pons NRE, 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylethylene glycol, DA, and HVA concentrations. Supplementation of GM polymer to the contaminated diet decreased (P < 0.05) 5HT and 5HIAA concentrations in the cortex of pigs. It was concluded that the differences in alterations of brain neurochemistry might explain the species differences in the severity of Fusarium mycotoxin-induced feed refusal.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".