In ovo feeding of epidermal growth factor: embryonic expression of intestinal epidermal growth factor receptor and posthatch growth performance and intestinal development in broiler chickens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated efficacy of in ovo application of epidermal growth factor (EGF) on intestinal expression of EGF receptor (EGFR) during embryogenesis (experiment 1) and posthatch growth performance and gastrointestinal development in broiler chickens (experiment 2). In experiment 1, 450 fertile Ross 708 eggs were allocated to 3 groups (150 eggs/group): 1) control, 2) 160 μg EGF/kg of egg, and 3) 640 μg of EGF/kg of egg. Eggs were candled for live embryos on day 16 and injected with the respective treatment solutions on day 17 and sampled for jejunal tissue from day 17 to hatch for EGFR analyses. There was no effect of EGF (P > 0.05) on EGFR expression on day 17 to 20; however, on day 21, EGF increased (P < 0.05) EGFR expression in EGF birds relative to control birds. In experiment 2, 600 fertile Ross 708 eggs were allocated to 5 treatments: 1) intact, no puncture or injection, 2) punched but not injected, 3) control, no EGF, 4) 80 μg of EGF/kg of egg, and 5) 160 μg of EGF/kg of egg. The eggs were incubated and candled for live embryos on D 19, treated, and subsequently transferred to the hatcher. Upon hatching, chicks were weighed, and 90 chicks per treatment placed in cages (15 birds/cage) and allowed free access to a standard antibiotic-free corn-soybean diet for 21 D. Feed intake and body weight were monitored on a weekly basis. Samples of birds were necropsied on D 0, 7, 14, and 21 for measurements of intestinal weight and jejunal histomorphology and excreta samples taken on D 3 to 5 and 17 to 19 for apparent retention of dry matter. There was no EGF effect (P > 0.05) on any posthatch response criteria. In conclusion, in ovo application of EGF increased EGFR expression but had no effect on posthatch growth performance, DM retention, and intestinal development. The lack of EGF effect on posthatch response was surprising but suggested in ovo application of EGF may not be a viable approach.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".