MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Temporal Changes in the Hindgut Health Markers of Labrador Dogs in Response to a Canine-origin Probiotic Lactobacillus johnsonii

2016· article· en· W2553612605 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sachin Kumar, A.K. Pattanaik, Tony Jose, Shalini Sharma, S.E. Jadhav

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Nutrition and Feed Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGut microbiota and health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbioticHindgutBiologyFecesLactobacillus acidophilusLactobacillusVeterinary medicineAnimal scienceFood scienceMicrobiologyBacteriaMedicineFermentationLarvaEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To study the temporal changes in the hindgut health markers in response to a canine-origin probiotic Lactobacillus johnsonii, 15 Labrador adult female dogs were distributed into three equal groups. Dogs in control group (CON) received a placebo MRS broth in the homemade basal diet as per the NRC recommendations. In other two groups, dogs received either canine-origin probiotic (Lactobacillus johnsonii isolated from dog faeces) developed at our laboratory (cPRO) or dairy-origin probiotic (Lactobacillus acidophilus NCDC-15; dPRO) in the same basal diet The experimental duration of 13-weeks in which feeding of probiotics discontinue after 9-weeks, had experimental protocol involving 3-d digestion trial following 0, 30, 60, 75 and 90 d of feeding to ascertain physical, biochemical and microbial assessment of faecal markers. The digestibility of DM remained similar (P>0.05) irrespective of dietary treatments. Faecal biochemical attributes including pH, lactate and ammonia implied positive influence of probiotic supplementation and the positive influence were more evident in canine-origin probiotic supplemented group. Faecal acetate was higher (P<0.05) in dogs of cPRO group as compared to CON, however intermediate values were recorded in dPRO group. Faecal propionate remained unaffected (P>0.05) among all the groups. There was significant (P<0.01) increase in faecal butyrate in both the probiotics fed groups as compared to CON. The faecal concentrations of total VFAs and SCFAs in fresh faeces were higher (P<0.05) in cPRO compared to other two groups. Faecal count of health-positive and healthnegative bacteria revealed that lactobacillus count exhibited higher (P<0.05) values in cPRO, intermediate in dPRO and lower value in CON, with the bifidobacteria population showing highest (P<0.05) value in the both the probiotics supplemented animals. There was a reducing effect in the health-negative clostridia and coliforms in cPRO and dPRO compared to CON. Overall, the results concluded that Probiotic supplementation was effective in improving the hind gut health, antioxidant and metabolic response in dogs. However, the present results are indicative of the superiority of canine-origin probiotic (cPRO) over the dairy-origin (dPRO) one, so far as its application for canines is concerned.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Nutrition and Feed TechnologySame topicGut microbiota and healthFrench-language works237,207