ArticleFood and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association2011
Evaluation of bioequivalency and toxicological effects of three sources of arachidonic acid (ARA) in domestic piglets.
Article in Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of Arachidonic Acid Metabolites on Cardiovascular Health and Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Safety and Efficacy of Sodium and Potassium Arachidonic Acid Salts in the Young Pig.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Early-Life Nutrition and Neurodevelopment: Use of the Piglet as a Translational Model.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Arachidonic acid (ARA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) are routinely added to infant formula to support growth and development. We evaluated the bioequivalence and safety of three ARA-rich oils for potential use in infant formula using the neonatal pig model. The primary outcome for bioequivalence was brain accretion of ARA and DHA. Days 3-22 of age, domestic pigs were fed one of three formulas, each containing ARA at ∼0.64% and DHA at ∼0.34% total fatty acids (FA). Control diet ARA was provided by ARASCO and all diets had DHA from DHASCO (Martek Biosciences Corp., Columbia, MD). The experimental diets a1 and a2 provided ARA from Refined Arachidonic acid-rich Oil (RAO; Cargill, Inc., Wuhan, China) and SUNTGA40S (Nissui, Nippon Suisan Kaisha, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan), respectively. Formula intake and growth were similar across all diets, and ARA was bioequivalent across treatments in the brain, retina, heart, liver and day 21 RBC. DHA levels in the brain, retina and heart were unaffected by diet. Liver sections, clinical chemistry, and hematological parameters were normal. We conclude that RAO and SUNTGA40S, when added to formula to supply ∼0.64% ARA are safe and nutritionally bioequivalent to ARASCO in domestic piglets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.