Gastrin release in a mucosal organ culture model exposed to a simulated digest of an equine dietary supplement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horses are prone to GI diseases including colic, colitis, and gastric ulcers. Equine dietary supplements are commonly used as a means of supporting optimal equine gastrointestinal health. G’s Formula (manufactured by G’s Organic Solutions INC., BC, CAN) is an equine dietary supplement composed of dried cabbage, carrot, oat flour, and hemp meal, formulated to promote optimal GI health in horses. The objective of the current study was to investigate the impact of a simulated gastric digest of GF on gastrin (Gt) release in an in vitro mucosal organ culture model. Porcine stomachs were collected from a local abattoir (Reist and Weber, ON, CAN). A section of mucosa from the pyloric antrum was isolated and the smooth muscle removed. A 4mm punch biopsy was used to divide the mucosa, and 2 biopsies were placed into each well of a 24‐well culture dish. Each well was filled with 1.5 ml of media supplemented with glutamine. Media was changed at 24h, at which time 100 ul of either a simulated gastric digest of GF (GF), a simulated gastric digest blank (BL), or PBS (CO) was added into sample wells. Media and digests were refreshed at 48h, at which time wells were either stimulated with 10 −5 M carbachol (GF‐s, n=12; BL‐s, n=12; CO‐s, n=11) or sham stimulated with PBS (GF‐n, n=9; BL‐n, n=13; CO‐n, n=10). This process was repeated at 60h, and the experiment was terminated at 72h. Gt release in the media was assessed using a porcine Gt ELISA (MyBioSource INC., SD, USA) and standardized /g tissue. Data was analyzed using a repeated measures ANOVA in SAS 9.4 using PROC GLIMMIX (SAS Institute, NC, USA). There was a difference between the treatments GF and BL (16534±797 vs 14072±723 pg/ml/g, p=0.03) and a trend towards a difference between GF and CO (14581±794 pg/ml/g, p=0.09). At 60h GF‐n was higher than CO‐n (17475±1784 vs 12164±1688 pg/ml/g) and GF‐s was higher than BL‐s (16903±1543 vs 12434±1544 pg/ml/g). GF‐s was higher at 72h compared to 48h (18289±1543 vs 14051±1543, p=0.03). In conclusion, a simulated gastric digest of GF added into an in vitro organ culture of porcine pyloric antrum appears to enhance tissue Gt release. Support or Funding Information This project was funded by G’s Organic Solutions INC. J.L. MacNicol was funded by NSERC.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".