MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402077375 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae255

Size matters: lower body weight pigs have a different response to immune challenge and amino acids supplementation above the estimated requirement compared to heavy pigs

2024· article· en· W4402077375 on OpenAlexafffund
Graziela Alves da Cunha Valini, S. Méthot, C. Pomar, Luciano Hauschild, Aline Remus

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversidade Estadual PaulistaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsImmune systemBody weightBiologyAnimal scienceAmino acidPhysiologyImmunologyEndocrinologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The immune response varies between pigs, as not all pigs have the same response to a stressor. This variation may exist between individuals due to body weight (BW) or body composition, which may impact the capacity for coping with an immune challenge (IC). Tryptophan (Trp), threonine (Thr), and methionine (Met) requirements might also play a considerable part in supporting immune system activation while reducing variation between pigs; however, the latter has yet to be reported. This exploratory study investigated the effect of initial BW (light vs. heavy-weight) and supplementation of Trp, Thr, and Met above National Research Council (NRC) requirements on feeding behavior and the coping capacity of growing pigs under an IC. Eighty gilts were categorized into 2 groups according to BW: light-weight (LW, 22.5 kg) and heavy-weight pigs (HW, 28.5 kg). Both BW groups were group-housed for a 28-d trial in a good or poor sanitary condition (SC). Pigs within a poor SC were orally inoculated with 2 × 109 colony units of Salmonella Typhimurium, and fresh manure from a pig farm was spread on the floor. Pigs within good SC were not inoculated, nor was manure spread. Two diets were provided within each SC: control (CN) or supplemented (AA+) with Trp, Thr, and Met at 120% of NRC recommended levels. A principal component analysis was performed in R, and a feeding behavior index was calculated in SAS. Results showed that LW and HW pigs were clustered separately on day 0, where LW pigs had a positive correlation with body lipid percentage (r = 0.83), and HW pigs had a positive correlation with body protein percentage (r = 0.75). After the IC, the cluster configuration changed, with diets influencing LW more than HW pigs within poor SC. On day 14, LW fed AA + diet in poor SC was clustered separately from LW pigs fed CN diet, whereas LW fed AA + and CN diets in good SC were clustered together. For feeding behavior, in both analyzed periods (period 1: days 7 to 14; period 2: days 21 to 28), LW had lower total feed intake and shorter meals than HW pigs (P < 0.10), independent of the SC. Furthermore, LW pigs fed AA + diet had a more regular feed intake pattern than those fed CN diet, while a more irregular pattern was observed for HW pigs fed AA + diet than CN diet at period 2. These findings suggest that supplementing Trp, Thr, and Met above requirements may be a nutritional strategy for LW pigs under IC by improving feed intake regularity and reducing the probability of being susceptible to IC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207