MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556283278 · doi:10.2527/jam2016-0463

0463 Effect of lipid supplementation and type of lipid on fatty acid composition of the ruminal epithelium and short-chain fatty acid transport

2016· article· en· W2556283278 on OpenAlexaff
Ana C Verdugo, G.B. Penner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryComposition (language)Polyunsaturated fatty acidFatty acidRandomized block designTallowFood sciencePalmitic acidAnimal scienceBiochemistryBiologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of lipid supplementation and the type of lipid on the fatty acid (FA) composition of the ruminal epithelium and short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) transport. Twenty-one Holstein steers (194 ± 10.7 kg) were blocked by BW and randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments differing in FA supply and composition. The control treatment (CON) contained 2.9% ether extract whereas the FA treatments contained 6.2% ether extract with the lipid coming from saturated (SAT; tallow and palmitic acid) or unsaturated sources (UNSAT; flax and Megalac). All calves were fed at 3% BW on a DM basis. After a 30-d feeding period, steers were killed and samples of the ruminal tissue were collected for FA analysis and to evaluate SCFA uptake and flux in Ussing chambers. Data were analyzed as a randomized complete block design using a mixed model with orthogonal contrasts to evaluate the effect of FA supplementation and the type of the FA supplement. There was a tendency for increased FA concentration in ruminal tissue for supplemented calves (P = 0.10), and SAT calves tended to have less FA than UNSAT (15.1 vs. 20.1 g/100 g; P = 0.06). Ruminal tissue from SAT had a tendency for greater monounsaturated FA (37.5 vs. 32.0; P = 0.08) and had less polyunsaturated FA (17.0 vs. 23.0; P = 0.03) than UNSAT. The changes in major FA classifications were largely due to an increase for C16:0 (25.2 vs. 24.2%; P = 0.02), decrease in C16:1 (1.65 vs. 10.32%; P = 0.02), and a decrease in EPA (0.19 vs. 0.38; P < 0.01) for SAT relative to UNSAT. Acetate uptake was not affected by FA supplementation (P ≥ 0.25), but providing supplemental FA increased propionate [0.61 vs. 0.37 nmol/(cm2 × min); P = 0.05] and butyrate uptake [0.82 vs. 0.45 nmol/(cm2 × min); P = 0.03)] by the ruminal epithelium. Moreover, feeding SAT increased butyrate uptake relative to UNSAT [1.06 vs. 0.59 nmol/(cm2 × min); P = 0.01)]. There was a tendency for an increase in propionate flux across the ruminal epithelium with FA supplementation [0.65 vs. 0.56 μ mol/(cm2 ×h)], but there were no differences between SAT and UNSAT. The results from this study indicate that providing supplemental FA may alter ruminal epithelial FA composition and enhance SCFA transport relative to non-supplemented calves.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207