Systematic review and meta-analysis of the methionine utilization efficiency in piglets receiving different methionine sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Methionine (Met) is an essential amino acid that can be supplied in different chemical forms: DL-Met, L-Met, and OH-Met. This study aimed (i) to model and compare the utilization efficiency of Met for protein deposition (PD) from all sources and (ii) to determine the efficacy and efficiency of these three free Met sources in average daily gain (ADG) of post-weaning pigs fed at or below the Met requirement. A systematic review of the literature resulted in 1,898 papers being screened for title and abstract, with 24 papers meeting the inclusion criteria. The resulting database containing 208 treatment means was used. Prior to model development the standardized ileal digestible (SID) Met requirements in percentage in the diet were determined using initial and final BW according to the NRC (2012). Data from piglets fed above the SID Met requirements were excluded from the database prior to statistical analysis. Linear mixed-effects regression models predicting ADG as a function of free Met source and SID methionine intake (Meti) or methionine + cysteine intake (Met+cysi) were used to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of free Met source for weight gain. Moreover, Met retention was modeled assuming that 16% of ADG is deposited as PD, and that Met accounts for 2% of PD. Met utilization efficiency was calculated as Meti after maintenance divided by Met retained in PD. Met utilization efficiency was 77% for the basal diet, decreased (P < 0.01) as Meti increased, and was equal among the three free Met sources. The mixed-effects models showed no difference in ADG for three free Met sources evaluated (P > 0.05). However, the efficacy (ADG per unit of SID Meti) of free Met sources for weight gain differed between piglets fed L and DL-Met (P < 0.05), while there was no difference (P > 0.05) between piglets fed DL and OH-Met or OH and L-Met. On average, piglets fed L-Met gained 40.3 g/d more weight per unit of increase in SID Meti than those fed DL-Met (model 4; P = 0.05). The efficacy of free Met sources for ADG was also compared using SID Met+cysi as co-variable. Piglets fed L- (+ 11.7 g/d; P = 0.02) or OH-Met (+ 11.5 g/d; P = 0.04) gained more weight per gram of SID Met+cysi compared to those fed DL-Met. In conclusion, although the efficacy of DL- and L-Met for ADG differed, the efficiency for PD of L-, DL-, and OH-Met were not different for in piglets fed at or below Meti requirement.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".