Short- and long-term impact of prebiotic supplementation during infancy on immune activity in Wistar rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aim of this study was to examine short-term and long-term effects of early administration of two dietary oligosaccharide supplements, fructooligosaccharide (FOS) and galactooligosaccharide (GOS) on innate immune parameters in infant Wistar rats. A second aim was to compare the impact of these supplements between sexes. Infant rats were gavaged orally on post natal days (PND) 6–16 with either FOS or GOS solution (0.075 g/50 μL), or with glucose (0.375 g/50 μL) or no gavage as controls while being maintained on an AIN-93G diet post-weaning (n = 8 per treatment/sex). Immune impacts at PND-16 and PND-70 were determined by immunophenotyping via flow cytometry and analyses of whole blood ex vivo TLR ligand responses at PND-70. At PND-16, percentages of CD103+ Dendritic cells (DC) were higher in MLN (P < 0.003) and spleens (P < 0.008) of FOS-treated rats (P < 0.003). At PND-70, CD103+ were unaffected but FOS supplementation had differential effects on MLN and spleen γδ-T cell populations in females versus males. Unstimulated whole blood cultures from rats fed GOS produced less CINC-1 than other treatments (P < 0.02, 57.5 ± 21.6 pg/mL). GOS-fed rats also had lower CINC-1 production in response to TLR2 (Pam3Cys, P < 0.02) and TLR4 (lipopolysaccharide, P < 0.01) stimulation, and produced less IL-1β after TLR4 stimulation (P < 0.05) than rats from all other treatments. Males produced more IL-10 than females after TLR4 stimulation regardless of treatment (P < 0.001, 72.6 ± 11.6 vs. 40.9 ± 8.2 pg/mL). Overall, these results suggest limited impact of early administration of prebiotic supplements FOS and GOS on immune development, with GOS having some long-term potential to modulate TLR2 and TLR4 ligand responses.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".