MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4255016533 · doi:10.3168/jds.2014-9013

Abomasal amino acid infusion in postpartum dairy cows: Effect on whole-body, splanchnic, and mammary glucose metabolism

2015· article· en· W4255016533 on OpenAlexafffund
C.E. Galindo, Mogens Larsen, D.R. Ouellet, Gaëlle Maxin, D. Pellerin, H. Lapierre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversité Laval
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanola Council of CanadaAarhus Universitet
KeywordsInternal medicineLactoseEndocrinologySplanchnicAbomasumChemistryMetabolismRumenAnimal scienceMedicineBlood flowBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nine Holstein cows fitted with rumen cannulas and indwelling catheters in splanchnic blood vessels were used to study the effects of supplementing AA on milk lactose secretion, whole-body rate of appearance (WB-Ra) of glucose, and tissue metabolism of glucose, lactate, glycerol, and β-OH-butyrate (BHBA) in postpartum dairy cows according to a generalized randomized incomplete block design with repeated measures in time. At calving, cows were blocked according to parity (second and third or greater) and were allocated to 2 treatments: abomasal infusion of water (n=4) or abomasal infusion of free AA with casein profile (AA-CN; n=5) in addition to the same basal diet. The AA-CN infusion started with half the maximal dose at 1 d in milk (DIM) and then steadily decreased from 791 to 226 g/d from DIM 2 to 29 to cover the estimated essential AA deficit. On DIM 5, 15, and 29, D[6,6-(2)H2]-glucose (23.7 mmol/h) was infused into a jugular vein for 5h, and 6 blood samples were taken from arterial, portal, hepatic, and mammary sources at 45-min intervals, starting 1h after the initiation of the D[6,6-(2)H2]glucose infusion. Trans-organ fluxes were calculated as veno-arterial differences times plasma flow (splanchnic: downstream dilution of deacetylated para-aminohippurate; mammary: Fick principle using Phe+Tyr). Energy-corrected milk and lactose yields increased on average with AA-CN by 6.4 kg/d and 353 g/d, respectively, with no DIM × treatment interaction. Despite increased AA supply and increased demand for lactose secretion with AA-CN, net hepatic release of glucose remained unchanged, but WB-Ra of glucose tended to increase with AA-CN. Portal true flux of glucose increased with AA-CN and represented, on average, 17% of WB-Ra. Splanchnic true flux of glucose was unaltered by treatments and was numerically equivalent to WB-Ra, averaging 729 and 741 mmol/h, respectively. Mammary glucose utilization increased with AA-CN infusion, averaging 78% of WB-Ra, and increased gradually as lactation advanced. Net portal, hepatic, splanchnic, and mammary fluxes of lactate, glycerol, and BHBA were not affected by AA infusion. Increasing the supply of AA in postpartum dairy cows elevated the WB-Ra of glucose without affecting the true liver glucose release. The greater WB-Ra of glucose with abomasal AA infusion seemed to originate mainly from greater true portal-drained viscera release of glucose. Glucose utilization by the portal-drained viscera was unaffected by abomasal AA infusion, but the exact mechanism behind the greater true portal glucose release could not be assessed in the current study. The increased mammary glucose uptake was in line with the increased milk lactose yield. In early postpartum lactation, the demand for AA seems to be so high that even with increased AA supply, cows have metabolic priorities for AA other than hepatic gluconeogenesis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207