Restricted feed intake in lactating primiparous sows. II. Effects on subsequent litter sex ratio and embryonic gene expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expression of panels of candidate genes controlling myogenesis, angiogenesis and gender-specific imprinting of development were analysed in embryonic, placental and endometrial tissues recovered at Day 30 of gestation from a subset of primiparous sows that were either feed restricted (Restrict; n=17) or fed to appetite (Control; n=15) during the last week of the previous lactation. Embryos were also sex typed to investigate gender bias in response to treatments. Average embryonic weight was lower in the subset of Restrict compared with Control litters (1.38±0.07vs 1.59±0.08g, respectively) and the male:female sex ratio was higher (P<0.05) in embryos (litters) recovered from Restrict sows. Treatment affected (P≤0.05) the expression of embryonic and placental genes involved in insulin-like growth factor (IGF) 2 signalling, including IGF2, INSR and IGF2R. Embryonic expression of ESR1 was also affected by treatment (P<0.03) and sex×treatment interactions were observed for the expression of embryonic ESR1 (P<0.05) and placental ANGPT2 (P<0.03). At the molecular level, these results support the suggestion that changes in placental function are not the primary mechanism mediating detrimental effects of previous sow catabolism on early embryonic development in the feed-restricted lactational sow model. However, perturbations in the IGF2 system are implicated as mediators of these effects.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".