Maternal dietary ratio of linoleic acid to alpha-linolenic acid affects the passive immunity of hatching chicks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of the current study was to examine the effect of dietary ratio of linoleic acid (LA) to alpha-linolenic acid (LNA) on the humoral immune response in laying hens and further on the passive immunity of their progeny. Thirty-two Single Comb White Leghorn laying hens, 24 wk of age, were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 diets that had LA-to-LNA ratios of 0.8, 5.4, 12.5, and 27.7, respectively, by changing the proportions of sunflower and linseed oils. After 5 wk on the experimental diets, hens were immunized intramuscularly with 1 mg of BSA, followed by 2 boosters 2 and 6 wk later. Serum and egg yolk were obtained weekly from 0 to 6 wk following the first injection of BSA. One week after the second booster, fertile eggs were collected and incubated. The sera of 11-d-old embryos and hatchlings were collected. All serum samples were stored at -20 degrees C before analysis. The results showed that dietary LA-to-LNA ratio had no effect on the total IgG and BSA-specific antibody IgG concentrations in the serum or egg yolk of laying hens. Hatchlings from hens fed the diet containing the LA-to-LNA ratio of 12.4 showed lower (P < 0.05) BSA-specific IgG titer in the serum than those from hens given the diet containing LA-to-LNA ratio of 0.8. A lower (P < 0.05) total IgG concentration was observed in hatchlings from hens fed the diet containing LA-to-LNA ratio of 12.4 compared with those from hens fed diets containing 0.8 and 5.4 of LA-to-LNA ratios. It is suggested that the dietary ratio of LA to LNA has no effect on laying hen humoral response but affects the passive immunity of hatching chicks.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".