Piglets fed a weaning diet containing small amounts of arachidonic acid and docosahexaneoic acids have a lower proliferative response to dietary protein ex vivo compared to controls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing body of evidence supports the inclusion of long chain polyunsaturated fats (PUFA) in infant formula. Their effects on immune function in weanlings are not known. This study measured the effects of PUFA in the weaning diet on phenotype, proliferation and cytokine production to a T/B cell mitogen (pokeweed), and two dietary proteins (ovalbumin and soy). At 21d of age, piglets (n=10/group) were randomized to a nutritionally complete control diet (15% w/w fat) or a diet with added arachidonic acid (AA, 0.6%)/docosahexaneoic acid (DHA , 0.4%) or DHA supplement (0.2%AA, 2% DHA, 0.3% eicosapentaenoic acid) for 14d. Proliferation (rate of 3 H‐thymidine uptake), cytokine production (IL2, IL10, IFNg, TNFa, TGFb) and phenotype of mesenteric lymphocytes did not differ among diets. Although there was no effect on the response to pokeweed in Peyer's patch cells (PPc), AA/DHA PPc proliferated less (P<0.05) in response to dietary proteins compared to control. There was no effect of the DHA supplement diet on immune response or immune cell phenotype compared to control. In summary, these results suggest that PUFA in the weaning diet does not impair the immune response to a T/B cell mitogen. The lower PPc response to dietary proteins with AA/DHA suggests a positive effect on oral tolerance. Funding provided by CIHR.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".