Presence and Levels of Galactosyllactoses and Other Oligosaccharides in Human Milk and Their Variation during Lactation and According to Maternal Phenotype
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the human milk oligosaccharides (HMOS), the galactosyllactoses (GLs) are only limitedly studied. This study aims to describe the presence and relative levels of HMOS, including GLs, in human milk (HM) according to maternal Secretor and Lewis (SeLe) phenotype and lactation stage. Relative levels of 19 HMOS were measured in 715 HM samples collected in the first 4 months postpartum from 371 donors participating in the PreventCD study. From a subset of 24 Dutch women (171 HM samples), samples were collected monthly up to 12 months postpartum and were additionally analyzed for relative and absolute levels of β6′-GL, β3′-GL and α3′-GL. Maternal SeLe phenotype or HM group was assigned based on the presence of specific fucosylated HMOS. Most HMOS, including β6′- and β3′-GL, were present in the vast majority (≥75%) of HM samples, whereas others (e.g., LNDFH II, 2′-F-LNH and α3′-GL) only occurred in a low number (<25%) of samples. Clear differences were observed between the presence and relative levels of the HMOS according to the maternal phenotype and lactation stage. Absolute concentrations of β6′-GL and β3′-GL were higher in HM group IV samples compared to samples of the other three HM groups. β3′-GL was also higher in HM group II samples compared to HM group I samples. β3′-GL and β6′-GL were stable over lactation stages. In conclusion, presence and levels of HMOS vary according to HM group and lactation stage. Not all HMOS behave similarly: some HMOS depend strongly on maternal phenotype and/or lactation stage, whereas others do not. β3′-GL and β6′-GL were present in low concentrations in over 75% of the analyzed HM samples and showed differences between HM groups, but not between the lactation stages.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".