l-Lysine supplementation affects dietary protein quality and growth and serum amino acid concentrations in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single amino acid (AA) supplementations in foods are increasing, however their potential nutritional and physiological impacts are not fully understood. This study examined the effects of L-lysine (Lys) supplementation on protein quality of diets, serum AA concentrations and associations between the ratio of supplemental Lys to dietary protein (X) with body weight gain (BWG) in Sprague-Dawley male rats. Rats were fed one of 10 diets containing either 7% or 20% casein and supplemented with 0% (Control), 1.5%, 3%, 6% Lys or 6% Lys + 3% L-arginine (Arg) (8 rats/diet group) for 1 week. Lys supplementation reduced the protein quality of the casein-based diets (p < 0.01). BWG was reduced by supplemental Lys when X > 0.18. Free Lys supplementation dose-dependently increased serum Lys levels (p < 0.01), while increased protein-bound Lys (1.4% vs 0.52%) had little effect on serum Lys (p > 0.05). In the 7% casein diets, ≥ 1.5% supplemental Lys reduced serum alanine, asparagine, glycine, isoleucine, leucine, serine, tyrosine, valine, carnitine, ornithine, and increased urea. Supplementation of ≥ 3% Lys additionally reduced tryptophan and increased histidine, methionine and α-aminoadipic acid (α-AAA) compared to the Control (p < 0.05). In the 20% casein diets, addition of ≥ 1.5% Lys reduced serum asparagine and threonine, and ≥ 3% Lys reduced leucine, proline, tryptophan, valine, and ornithine, and 6% Lys reduced carnitine, and increased histidine, methionine, and α-AAA. Overall, this study showed that free Lys supplementation in a Lys-sufficient diet reduced the protein quality of the diets and modified the serum concentrations of many amino acids. Excess free Lys intake adversely affected growth and utilization of nutrients due to AA imbalance or antagonism. Overall lower protein intake increases susceptibility to the adverse effects of Lys supplementation.
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) | 0.001 | 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".