Growth performance and gastrointestinal responses of broiler chickens fed corn-soybean meal diet without or with exogenous epidermal growth factor upon challenge with Eimeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidermal growth factor (EGF), a protein known for its mitogenic and anti-apoptotic effects was fed to broiler chickens to evaluate growth performance, gastrointestinal measurements, and apparent retention (AR) of components upon challenge with Eimeria. A total of 216, d old male broiler chicks (Ross 708) were placed in cages (6 birds/cage) and allocated to treatments. The treatments were: 1) control (Lactotobacilli lactis fermentation supernatant without EGF), 2) 80 μg of EGF/kg BW/d, and 3) 160 μg of EGF/kg BW/d. A basal antibiotic-free corn-soybean diet containing TiO2 was used. Birds were offered fresh feed with respective treatments on daily basis and had free access to drinking water for 14 d. On d 5, birds (6 replicates per treatment) were challenged with 1 mL of E. acervulina and E. maxima mixture via oral gavage and the other 6 replicates were given sham. Growth performance was measured in pre- (d 0 to 5) and post- (d 6 to 14) challenge periods. Two birds per cage were necropsied on d 10 for intestinal lesion scores and tissue samples for histomorphology and expression of select intestinal genes. Excreta samples for AR of components and oocyst shedding were taken d 10 to 13 and all birds were necropsied on d 14 for gastrointestinal weight. The EGF linearly (P < 0.05) increased BWG before challenge. There was no EGF and Eimeria interaction (P > 0.05) on growth performance, AR of GE, and intestinal histomorphology; the main effects were such that Eimeria depressed (P < 0.01) BWG, FCR, AR of DM, crude fat, and GE, and villi height to crypt depth ratio. An interaction between EGF and Eimeria (P < 0.05) on indices of gut function was such that EGF improved expression of genes for nutrient transporters and tight junction proteins in Eimeria challenged birds whilst no effect in non-challenged control. In conclusion, Eimeria challenge reduced growth performance and impaired gut function; EGF showed beneficial effects on growth pre-challenge and improved indices of gut function upon Eimeria challenge.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".