Feed supplementation with arginine and zinc on antioxidant status and inflammatory response in challenged weanling piglets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although supplementing the diet with zinc oxide and arginine is known to improve growth in weanling piglets, the mechanism of action is not well understood. We measured the antioxidant status and inflammatory response in 48 weanling castrated male piglets fed diets supplemented with or without zinc oxide (2,500 mg Zn oxide per kg) and arginine (1%) starting at the age of 20 days. The animals were injected with lipopolysaccharide (100 μg/kg) on day 5. Half of them received another injection on day 12. Blood samples were taken just before and 6, 24 and 48 h after injection and the mucosa lining the ileum was recovered following euthanizing on days 7 and 14. Zinc supplementation increased reduced and total glutathione (GSH) (reduced and total) during days 5 to 7 and arginine decreased oxidized GSH measured on days 5 and 12 and the ratio of total antioxidant capacity to total oxidative status during days 12 to 14. Zinc decreased plasma malondialdehyde measured on days 5 and 12 and serum haptoglobin measured on day 12 and increased both metallothionein-1 expression and total antioxidant capacity measured in the ileal mucosa on day 14. Tumour necrosis factor α concentration decreased from days 5 to 12 (all effects were significant at P < 0.05). This study shows that the zinc supplement reduced lipid oxidation and lipopolysaccharide-induced inflammation during the post-weaning period, while the arginine supplementation had only a limited effect.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".