Effects of Individual Essential Amino Acids on Growth Rates of Young Rats Fed a Low-Protein Diet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To investigate the effects of individual essential amino acids (EAA) on growth and the underlying mechanisms, EAA individually supplemented a low-protein (LP) diet fed to young rats in the present study. Treatments were an LP diet that contained 6% crude protein (CP), a high-protein (HP) diet that contained 18% CP, and 10 LP diets supplemented with individual EAA to achieve an EAA supply equal to that of the HP diet. The CP concentration of the LP diet was ascertained from the results of the first experiment, which examined the effects of dietary CP concentrations on growth rates, with CP ranging from 2% to 26%. Weight gain was increased with the supplementation of His, Ile, Lys, Thr, or Trp as compared to the LP diet (p < 0.05). Feed intake was greater for the His-, Lys-, and Thr-supplemented treatments as compared to the LP group (p < 0.05). Protein utilization efficiency was lower for the HP group than other groups (p < 0.01). The supplementation of Leu, Lys, and Val led to reduced protein utilization efficiency (p < 0.05), but the supplementation of Thr and Trp led to greater efficiency than the LP group (p < 0.05). Compared to the LP group, plasma urea concentrations were elevated with individual EAA supplementation, with the exception of the Thr addition. The added EAA resulted in increased concentrations of the corresponding EAA in plasma, except for Arg and Phe supplementation. The supplementation of Arg, His, Leu, Lys, and Met individually stimulated mTORC1 pathway activity (p < 0.05), and all EAA resulted in the decreased expression of ATF4 (p < 0.05). In summary, the supplementation of His, Ile, Lys, Thr, or Trp to an LP diet improved the growth performance of young rats. Responses to His and Lys additions were related to the activated mTORC1 pathway and feed intake increases. The improved growth performance resulting from the addition of a single EAA is not solely attributed to the increased plasma availability of EAA. Rather, it may be the consequence of a confluence of factors encompassing signaling pathways, the availability of amino acids, and other associated elements. The additivity of these factors results in independent responses to several EAA with no order of limitation, as is universally encoded in growth models for all production animal species.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".