Effects of oral administration of essential oils on anti-immune stress, antimicrobial properties, and repairing the intestinal damage in broilers challenged by lipopolysaccharide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of oral administration of essential oils (carvacrol, thyme, and oregano) on anti-immune stress, antimicrobial properties, and repairing the intestinal damage caused by Salmonella enterica lipopolysaccharides (LPS) in broilers. A total of 100 Ross 308 broilers (21-d-old; 1.10 ± 0.11 kg) were randomly allocated to five groups: T1, basal diet + saline; T2, basal diet + LPS; T3, basal diet + 200 μL carvacrol oils + LPS; T4, basal diet + 200 μL thyme oils + LPS; T5, basal diet + 200 μL oregano oils + LPS, with 20 replicates each, and one chicken per replicate per cage. Those challenged by LPS resulted in an immune stress, which manifests as the abnormal growth (P < 0.05) in immune organs, and the content of immunoglobulin G (P < 0.05), tumor necrosis factor-α (P < 0.05), and the rectum temperature (P < 0.05) increased compared with other groups. The oral administration of essential oils controlled the immune stress to a certain extent. The essential oils could reduce harmful bacteria, such as Escherichia coli (P < 0.05) and Salmonella enumeration (P < 0.05), in vivo of broilers. Meanwhile, the essential oils repaired the intestinal damage, which showed a reduction in the villi height (P < 0.05) and goblet cell (P < 0.05) caused by LPS. In conclusion, the essential oils (carvacrol, thyme, and oregano essential oils) controlled the stress reaction and maintained intestinal health to a certain extent.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".