MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Offspring immune development is dependent on the amount and form of choline in the maternal diet during suckling

2016· article· en· W4389026408 on OpenAlexaffabout
Erin D. Lewis, Caroline Richard, Susan Goruk, Neele Dellschaft, Jonathan M. Curtis, René L. Jacobs, Catherine J. Field

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCholineImmune systemOffspringInternal medicineEndocrinologyPhosphatidylcholineSpleenLactationBreast milkBiologyChemistryMedicineImmunologyPregnancyBiochemistryPhospholipid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exogenous choline needs increase in the postnatal period to meet infant development demands. There is limited knowledge on choline intake during lactation or the role of different choline forms. We developed a database for the choline content of foods and estimated intake in the Alberta Pregnancy Outcomes and Nutrition cohort. During lactation, 90% of women (n=1000) consumed below the DRI, with phosphatidylcholine (PC) and free choline comprising ~65% of total choline. In the early postnatal period, the immune system undergoes rapid development and requires a choline supply. The importance of the contribution of dietary choline to immune development during this period has not been explored. In a rodent model, the study objectives were to determine the effect of 1) dietary choline deficiency and 2) the 2 major forms of dietary choline (PC vs. free choline), on parameters of immune development and function in suckled offspring. At parturition, dams were randomized to either: 0 g/kg choline (D; n=7), 1.0 g/kg choline as free choline (C; n=15) or 1.0 g/kg choline as PC (PC; n=5). Diets were nutritionally complete, isocaloric, with similar fatty acid composition. At 3 wks, spleen immune cell phenotypes (by 4‐colour flow cytometry) and ex vivo cytokine production (by ELISA) after Concanavalin A (ConA), lipopolysaccharide (LPS) or CD3/CD28 (T cell antigen) stimulation was measured. Stomach content (representing breast milk), plasma and spleen choline content was measured by liquid chromatography‐mass spectrometry (LC‐MS). D pups had lower body and organ weight, splenocyte number and total choline in stomach compared to C pups (P<0.05). D pups had a higher proportion of helper T cells expressing activation (CD71) and co‐stimulation (CD28) markers and lower proportion of total B cells (CD45RA+) compared to C pups. D pups produced less IFN‐γ (CD3/CD28 stimulation) and less IL‐1β (LPS stimulation). Compared to C pups, splenocytes from PC pups had a lower proportion of antigen presenting cells (OX12+, OX6+, CD68+/CD11b/c+ cells) but produced more IL‐2, IFN‐g and IL‐6 (ConA stimulation), and more IL‐6 and TNF‐α (LPS stimulation). Choline form (fed at 1g/kg) did not alter growth, splenocyte number or total choline in stomach. However, PC pups had a higher proportion of choline as lysoPC and lower proportion as free choline (P<0.05). PC pups had a higher concentration of PC in plasma and splenocyte phospholipids compared to C pups, later confirmed in an in vitro study that may explain the functional differences between choline forms. Our studies suggest choline is essential in the maternal diet during suckling for offspring immune development and providing choline as PC, compared to free choline, promoted maturation and improved immune function. Together with our findings of possible suboptimal intake in lactating women, future research should focus on identifying potential benefits of increasing both total and PC sources of choline in the maternal diet to support immune development in the infant. Support or Funding Information Supported by NSERC, Alberta Livestock and Meat Agency and Alberta Innovates Biosolutions. EDL holds an Izaak Walton Killam Memorial and NSERC Postgraduate Doctoral Scholarships

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicBirth, Development, and Health→French-language works237,207→