净门户外观用于评估饲料评估系统预测奶牛的消化流量和肠道必需氨基酸代谢:一项荟萃分析。

IF 4.7 1区 农林科学 Q1 AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE Journal of Dairy Science Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-03-04 DOI:10.3168/jds.2024-25987
R. Martineau , D.R. Ouellet , D. Pellerin , P.A. LaPierre , M.E. Van Amburgh , G.E. Lobley , H. Lapierre
{"title":"净门户外观用于评估饲料评估系统预测奶牛的消化流量和肠道必需氨基酸代谢:一项荟萃分析。","authors":"R. Martineau ,&nbsp;D.R. Ouellet ,&nbsp;D. Pellerin ,&nbsp;P.A. LaPierre ,&nbsp;M.E. Van Amburgh ,&nbsp;G.E. Lobley ,&nbsp;H. Lapierre","doi":"10.3168/jds.2024-25987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Accurate prediction of intestinal digestible flows of EAA (DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub>) is a crucial step for adequately balancing EAA supply to reduce the amount of CP fed to dairy cows, without compromising either milk production or the health status of the animals. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the performance of 3 dairy feed evaluation systems (FES) to predict DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub> (NRC; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine [NASEM]; and Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System version 6.5.5 [CNCPS]) in relation to observed net portal appearance (NPA<sub>obs</sub>) of EAA. Although the DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub> cannot be measured directly and none of the FES were designed to estimate the net portal appearance (NPA) of EAA, NPA could be predicted (NPA<sub>pred</sub>) from estimations of DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub> minus the estimated metabolic fecal protein (MFP). This NPA<sub>pred</sub>, however, would not include any oxidation for EAA or synthesis for Arg, a semi-EAA, occurring during the absorption process. Intuitively, the prediction errors should be smallest for the DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub> best predicted across the 3 FES and for the EAA not oxidized by the portal-drained viscera (PDV). The dataset included 83 NPA<sub>obs</sub> treatment means from 25 studies. To avoid type I error, mean and linear biases were considered biologically relevant if statistically significant and representing &gt;5.0% of the observed mean (%<sub>obs.mean</sub>). The NPA<sub>pred</sub> of branched-chain AA (BCAA) and Thr showed a similar pattern across the 3 FES, with all overpredicted relative to NPA<sub>obs</sub> (6%<sub>obs.mean</sub> to 27%<sub>obs.mean</sub>). The NPA<sub>pred</sub> for the other EAA were more variable: (1) underprediction of Arg (9%<sub>obs.mean</sub> to 20%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with NRC and NASEM, and Met (8%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with NRC, (2) overprediction of Lys and Phe (5%<sub>obs.mean</sub> to 11%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with NASEM, and His, Met and Trp (8%<sub>obs.mean</sub> to 14%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with CNCPS, and (3) linear biases for Arg (7%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with NASEM, and for His, Lys, Met, and Phe (5%<sub>obs.mean</sub> to 14%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with CNCPS. In our previously reported meta-analysis, the mean and linear biases between observed and predicted EAA postruminal outflow were related to the site of digesta sampling (duodenal vs. omasal) for some EAA, but it was not possible to determine which sampling site was representative of the true supply of EAA to the cows. In an effort to solve this issue, predictions of NPA (except Trp) were recalculated removing the mean and linear biases observed in duodenal and omasal studies of our previous meta-analysis (NPA<sub>rec_duo</sub> and NPA<sub>rec_oma</sub>). Compared with NPA<sub>pred</sub>, the pattern of BCAA and Thr remained overpredicted in NPA<sub>rec_duo</sub> and NPA<sub>rec_oma</sub> across the 3 FES. This strongly suggests oxidation of Ile, Leu, Val, and Thr by the PDV averaging, respectively, 12% (range 6% to 18%), 16% (range 14% to 17%), 24% (range 18% to 27%), and 19% (range 13% to 23%) of NPA<sub>obs</sub> across the 3 FES. The magnitude of PDV oxidation, however, would be related to the ratio of DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub> to digestible energy intake. The negative mean biases for Arg NPA<sub>pred</sub> would suggest synthesis by the PDV. For the BCAA, Thr, and Arg, because of the uncertainty on the biological quantification of the differences between NPA<sub>obs</sub> and NPA<sub>pred</sub>, the relative performance of each FES could not be assessed. Assuming no oxidation of the other EAA (i.e., His, Lys, Met, and Phe) by the PDV and an adequate estimation of MFP, their NPA<sub>obs</sub> indicate that the DigFlow of (1) Met is underpredicted by NRC, (2) Lys is overpredicted by NASEM, (3) His and Met are overpredicted with CNCPS, and (4) His, Lys, Met, and Phe present a linear bias with CNCPS, supporting similar observations on the postruminal EAA outflows from our previous meta-analysis. Based on current NPA<sub>obs</sub> studies and our previous meta-analysis on postruminal outflows of EAA, sampling digesta at the duodenum appears to be more representative of the true supply of EAA to the cows than sampling at the omasum.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":354,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dairy Science","volume":"108 5","pages":"Pages 4906-4933"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Net portal appearance used to assess feed evaluation system predictions of the digestive flow and gut metabolism of essential amino acids in dairy cows: A meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"R. Martineau ,&nbsp;D.R. Ouellet ,&nbsp;D. Pellerin ,&nbsp;P.A. LaPierre ,&nbsp;M.E. Van Amburgh ,&nbsp;G.E. Lobley ,&nbsp;H. Lapierre\",\"doi\":\"10.3168/jds.2024-25987\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Accurate prediction of intestinal digestible flows of EAA (DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub>) is a crucial step for adequately balancing EAA supply to reduce the amount of CP fed to dairy cows, without compromising either milk production or the health status of the animals. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the performance of 3 dairy feed evaluation systems (FES) to predict DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub> (NRC; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine [NASEM]; and Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System version 6.5.5 [CNCPS]) in relation to observed net portal appearance (NPA<sub>obs</sub>) of EAA. Although the DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub> cannot be measured directly and none of the FES were designed to estimate the net portal appearance (NPA) of EAA, NPA could be predicted (NPA<sub>pred</sub>) from estimations of DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub> minus the estimated metabolic fecal protein (MFP). This NPA<sub>pred</sub>, however, would not include any oxidation for EAA or synthesis for Arg, a semi-EAA, occurring during the absorption process. Intuitively, the prediction errors should be smallest for the DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub> best predicted across the 3 FES and for the EAA not oxidized by the portal-drained viscera (PDV). The dataset included 83 NPA<sub>obs</sub> treatment means from 25 studies. To avoid type I error, mean and linear biases were considered biologically relevant if statistically significant and representing &gt;5.0% of the observed mean (%<sub>obs.mean</sub>). The NPA<sub>pred</sub> of branched-chain AA (BCAA) and Thr showed a similar pattern across the 3 FES, with all overpredicted relative to NPA<sub>obs</sub> (6%<sub>obs.mean</sub> to 27%<sub>obs.mean</sub>). The NPA<sub>pred</sub> for the other EAA were more variable: (1) underprediction of Arg (9%<sub>obs.mean</sub> to 20%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with NRC and NASEM, and Met (8%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with NRC, (2) overprediction of Lys and Phe (5%<sub>obs.mean</sub> to 11%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with NASEM, and His, Met and Trp (8%<sub>obs.mean</sub> to 14%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with CNCPS, and (3) linear biases for Arg (7%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with NASEM, and for His, Lys, Met, and Phe (5%<sub>obs.mean</sub> to 14%<sub>obs.mean</sub>) with CNCPS. In our previously reported meta-analysis, the mean and linear biases between observed and predicted EAA postruminal outflow were related to the site of digesta sampling (duodenal vs. omasal) for some EAA, but it was not possible to determine which sampling site was representative of the true supply of EAA to the cows. In an effort to solve this issue, predictions of NPA (except Trp) were recalculated removing the mean and linear biases observed in duodenal and omasal studies of our previous meta-analysis (NPA<sub>rec_duo</sub> and NPA<sub>rec_oma</sub>). Compared with NPA<sub>pred</sub>, the pattern of BCAA and Thr remained overpredicted in NPA<sub>rec_duo</sub> and NPA<sub>rec_oma</sub> across the 3 FES. This strongly suggests oxidation of Ile, Leu, Val, and Thr by the PDV averaging, respectively, 12% (range 6% to 18%), 16% (range 14% to 17%), 24% (range 18% to 27%), and 19% (range 13% to 23%) of NPA<sub>obs</sub> across the 3 FES. The magnitude of PDV oxidation, however, would be related to the ratio of DigFlow<sub>EAA</sub> to digestible energy intake. The negative mean biases for Arg NPA<sub>pred</sub> would suggest synthesis by the PDV. For the BCAA, Thr, and Arg, because of the uncertainty on the biological quantification of the differences between NPA<sub>obs</sub> and NPA<sub>pred</sub>, the relative performance of each FES could not be assessed. Assuming no oxidation of the other EAA (i.e., His, Lys, Met, and Phe) by the PDV and an adequate estimation of MFP, their NPA<sub>obs</sub> indicate that the DigFlow of (1) Met is underpredicted by NRC, (2) Lys is overpredicted by NASEM, (3) His and Met are overpredicted with CNCPS, and (4) His, Lys, Met, and Phe present a linear bias with CNCPS, supporting similar observations on the postruminal EAA outflows from our previous meta-analysis. Based on current NPA<sub>obs</sub> studies and our previous meta-analysis on postruminal outflows of EAA, sampling digesta at the duodenum appears to be more representative of the true supply of EAA to the cows than sampling at the omasum.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":354,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Dairy Science\",\"volume\":\"108 5\",\"pages\":\"Pages 4906-4933\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Dairy Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030225001419\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/3/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dairy Science","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030225001419","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AGRICULTURE, DAIRY & ANIMAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

准确预测肠内氨基酸可消化流量(DigFlowEAA)是平衡肠内氨基酸供应的关键一步,从而在不影响产奶量和动物健康的前提下减少饲粮CP量。本荟萃分析的目的是比较3种奶牛饲料评价系统(FES)预测DigFlowEAA (NRC;美国国家科学院、工程院和医学院;康奈尔净碳水化合物和蛋白质系统版本6.5.5 [CNCPS])与观察到的EAA净门静脉外观(NPAobs)有关。虽然不能直接测量DigFlowEAA,也没有设计FES来估计EAA的净门静脉外观(NPA),但可以通过DigFlowEAA减去估计的代谢粪便蛋白(MFP)来预测NPA (NPApred)。然而,该NPApred不包括在吸收过程中发生的EAA氧化或半EAA Arg的合成。直观地说,对于在3个FES中预测最佳的DigFlowEAA和未被门静脉排出的脏器(PDV)氧化的EAA,预测误差应该最小。该数据集包括来自25项研究的83种npaob治疗方法。为了避免I型误差,如果统计上显著且占观察到的平均值(%obs.mean)的5.0%,则认为均值和线性偏差具有生物学相关性。支链AA (BCAA)和Thr的npaob在3个FES中表现出相似的模式,相对于npaob都被高估了(6%)。平均到27%(平均)。其他EAA的NPApred变化更大:(1)Arg低估(9%ob)。NRC和NASEM对赖氨酸和苯丙氨酸的预测过高(5%),NRC对Met的预测过高(8%)。平均为11%,而His, Met和Trp为8%。(3) Arg与NASEM的线性偏差为7%,His、Lys、Met和Phe的线性偏差为5%。平均到14%(平均)。在我们之前报道的荟萃分析中,观察到的EAA和预测的EAA在胃后流出量之间的平均值和线性偏差与某些EAA的食糜采样部位(十二指肠或肛肠)有关,但无法确定哪个采样部位代表奶牛的真实EAA供应。为了解决这个问题,我们重新计算了NPA(除了Trp)的预测结果,消除了我们之前的荟萃分析(NPArec_duo和NPArec_oma)在十二指肠和肛肠研究中观察到的均值和线性偏差。与NPApred相比,NPArec_duo和NPArec_oma在3个FES中的BCAA和Thr模式仍然被高估。这强烈表明,在3个FES中,Ile、Leu、Val和Thr的PDV平均氧化分别为12%(范围为6%至18%)、16%(范围为14%至17%)、24%(范围为18%至27%)和19%(范围为13%至23%)的npaob。然而,PDV氧化的程度与DigFlowEAA与可消化能量摄入的比例有关。Arg NPApred的负平均偏差表明由PDV合成。对于BCAA、Thr和Arg,由于npaob和NPApred之间差异的生物学量化存在不确定性,因此无法评估每种FES的相对性能。假设PDV没有氧化其他EAA(即His、Lys、Met和Phe),并且对MFP进行了充分的估计,它们的NPAobs表明(1)NRC低估了Met的DigFlow, (2) NASEM高估了Lys, (3) CNCPS高估了His和Met, (4) His、Lys、Met和Phe与CNCPS存在线性偏倚,支持了我们之前荟萃分析中关于脑室后EAA流出的类似观察结果。根据目前的NPAobs研究和我们之前对胃后EAA流出的荟萃分析,在十二指肠取样消化物似乎比在瓣胃取样更能代表奶牛的EAA真实供应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Net portal appearance used to assess feed evaluation system predictions of the digestive flow and gut metabolism of essential amino acids in dairy cows: A meta-analysis
Accurate prediction of intestinal digestible flows of EAA (DigFlowEAA) is a crucial step for adequately balancing EAA supply to reduce the amount of CP fed to dairy cows, without compromising either milk production or the health status of the animals. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the performance of 3 dairy feed evaluation systems (FES) to predict DigFlowEAA (NRC; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine [NASEM]; and Cornell Net Carbohydrate and Protein System version 6.5.5 [CNCPS]) in relation to observed net portal appearance (NPAobs) of EAA. Although the DigFlowEAA cannot be measured directly and none of the FES were designed to estimate the net portal appearance (NPA) of EAA, NPA could be predicted (NPApred) from estimations of DigFlowEAA minus the estimated metabolic fecal protein (MFP). This NPApred, however, would not include any oxidation for EAA or synthesis for Arg, a semi-EAA, occurring during the absorption process. Intuitively, the prediction errors should be smallest for the DigFlowEAA best predicted across the 3 FES and for the EAA not oxidized by the portal-drained viscera (PDV). The dataset included 83 NPAobs treatment means from 25 studies. To avoid type I error, mean and linear biases were considered biologically relevant if statistically significant and representing >5.0% of the observed mean (%obs.mean). The NPApred of branched-chain AA (BCAA) and Thr showed a similar pattern across the 3 FES, with all overpredicted relative to NPAobs (6%obs.mean to 27%obs.mean). The NPApred for the other EAA were more variable: (1) underprediction of Arg (9%obs.mean to 20%obs.mean) with NRC and NASEM, and Met (8%obs.mean) with NRC, (2) overprediction of Lys and Phe (5%obs.mean to 11%obs.mean) with NASEM, and His, Met and Trp (8%obs.mean to 14%obs.mean) with CNCPS, and (3) linear biases for Arg (7%obs.mean) with NASEM, and for His, Lys, Met, and Phe (5%obs.mean to 14%obs.mean) with CNCPS. In our previously reported meta-analysis, the mean and linear biases between observed and predicted EAA postruminal outflow were related to the site of digesta sampling (duodenal vs. omasal) for some EAA, but it was not possible to determine which sampling site was representative of the true supply of EAA to the cows. In an effort to solve this issue, predictions of NPA (except Trp) were recalculated removing the mean and linear biases observed in duodenal and omasal studies of our previous meta-analysis (NPArec_duo and NPArec_oma). Compared with NPApred, the pattern of BCAA and Thr remained overpredicted in NPArec_duo and NPArec_oma across the 3 FES. This strongly suggests oxidation of Ile, Leu, Val, and Thr by the PDV averaging, respectively, 12% (range 6% to 18%), 16% (range 14% to 17%), 24% (range 18% to 27%), and 19% (range 13% to 23%) of NPAobs across the 3 FES. The magnitude of PDV oxidation, however, would be related to the ratio of DigFlowEAA to digestible energy intake. The negative mean biases for Arg NPApred would suggest synthesis by the PDV. For the BCAA, Thr, and Arg, because of the uncertainty on the biological quantification of the differences between NPAobs and NPApred, the relative performance of each FES could not be assessed. Assuming no oxidation of the other EAA (i.e., His, Lys, Met, and Phe) by the PDV and an adequate estimation of MFP, their NPAobs indicate that the DigFlow of (1) Met is underpredicted by NRC, (2) Lys is overpredicted by NASEM, (3) His and Met are overpredicted with CNCPS, and (4) His, Lys, Met, and Phe present a linear bias with CNCPS, supporting similar observations on the postruminal EAA outflows from our previous meta-analysis. Based on current NPAobs studies and our previous meta-analysis on postruminal outflows of EAA, sampling digesta at the duodenum appears to be more representative of the true supply of EAA to the cows than sampling at the omasum.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Dairy Science
Journal of Dairy Science 农林科学-奶制品与动物科学
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
17.10%
发文量
784
审稿时长
4.2 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the American Dairy Science Association®, Journal of Dairy Science® (JDS) is the leading peer-reviewed general dairy research journal in the world. JDS readers represent education, industry, and government agencies in more than 70 countries with interests in biochemistry, breeding, economics, engineering, environment, food science, genetics, microbiology, nutrition, pathology, physiology, processing, public health, quality assurance, and sanitation.
期刊最新文献
The cyclic adenosine monophosphate-ArcRsa signaling axis modulates biofilm formation in dairy-derived Staphylococcus aureus via transcriptional repression of ica operon. The alternative sigma factor SigH modulates biofilm formation and stress tolerance in a raw milk-derived Staphylococcus aureus. Intrinsic protein disorder and bacteria-specific proteolytic systems shape the peptidome of fermented camel milk. Effects of heat stress on water intake in Holstein dairy cows: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Proteolysis-driven enhancement of texture and bioactivity in milk co-fermented with Lactobacillus delbrueckii ssp. bulgaricus, Lacticaseibacillus paracasei, and Kluyveromyces marxianus.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1