MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410629035 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf179

In vitro fermentation characteristics of acacia fiber using feline fecal inoculum

2025· article· en· W4410629035 on OpenAlexaff
Vanessa M De La Guardia Hidrogo, Patrícia M Oba, Olivia R Swanson, Laura Bauer, Elena Vinay, John F Menton, Mathieu Millette, Melissa R. Kelly, Ryan N. Dilger, Kelly S. Swanson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFood and Agricultural Sciences
Canadian institutionsBausch Health (Canada)SNC-Lavalin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFermentationInulinPropionateAcaciaCelluloseFood scienceChemistryPectinGum acaciaNeutral Detergent FiberFiberBiologyBotanyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acacia fiber is a soluble fiber often used as a processing aid in pet foods. The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the fermentation characteristics of acacia fiber, inulin, pectin (positive control), and cellulose (negative control) using an in vitro fermentation system and feline fecal inoculum. Triplicate samples of each fiber were fermented for 0, 6, 12, and 18 h, with short-chain fatty acids (SCFA), pH, and microbiota measured at each time point. Blank-corrected data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX of SAS, with significance set at P ≤ 0.05. Significant (P < 0.01) fiber × time interactions were observed for pH change, gas and SCFA production, and microbiota populations. Pectin and inulin had greater (P < 0.01) gas production than acacia fiber and cellulose. Inulin had the greatest pH reduction, followed by pectin, both of which had greater pH reductions (P < 0.01) than acacia fiber and cellulose. Acacia fiber had a small reduction in pH, being lower than cellulose after 12 h. Total SCFA production, including acetate, propionate, and butyrate, was higher (P < 0.01) in pectin and inulin than acacia fiber and cellulose. However, acacia fiber had greater (P < 0.01) total SCFA, acetate, and propionate production than cellulose after 12 h. Bacterial alpha diversity metrics increased (P < 0.01) during acacia fiber fermentation and decreased (P < 0.01) during inulin and pectin fermentation. Bacterial beta diversity shifted over time and showed separate clustering of bacterial communities among the different fiber substrates evaluated. The relative abundances of predominant (% sequences > 1%) bacterial genera were affected by significant fiber × time interactions. Specifically, acacia fiber had a greater (P < 0.01) increase in Bacteroides, Blautia, and Faecalibacterium than other fibers. Inulin had a greater (P < 0.01) increase in Collinsella, Prevotella, Megamonas, Holdemanella, Blautia, and Faecalibacterium, whereas pectin had a greater (P < 0.01) increase in Bifidobacterium, Lactobacillus, Phascolarctobacterium, and Succinivibrio. These results suggest that acacia fiber is moderately fermentable, resulting in low gas and SCFA production, greater bacterial diversity, and microbiota shifts. Although positive responses were observed in vitro, research in live animals is necessary to confirm potential benefits in felines.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.260 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicFood and Agricultural SciencesFrench-language works237,207