Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34078952›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2021

Curcumin reduces enteric isoprostane 8-iso-PGF2α and prostaglandin GF2α in specific pathogen-free Leghorn chickens challenged with Eimeria maxima.

Victor M Petrone-Garcia, Raquel Lopez-Arellano, Gabriela Rodríguez Patiño, Miriam Aide Castillo Rodríguez, Daniel Hernandez-Patlan, Bruno Solis-Cruz, Xochitl Hernandez-Velasco, Fernando Alba-Hurtado, Christine N Vuong, Inkar Castellanos-Huerta and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Maternal curcumin supplementation alleviates intestinal inflammation ofAnimal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Victor M Petrone-GarciaPrograma de Doctorado en Ciencias de la Salud y Producción Animal, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
Raquel Lopez-ArellanoLaboratorio No 5: LEDEFAR, Unidad de Investigacion Multidisciplinaria, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlan, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
Gabriela Rodríguez PatiñoLaboratorio No 5: LEDEFAR, Unidad de Investigacion Multidisciplinaria, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlan, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
Miriam Aide Castillo RodríguezLaboratorio No 5: LEDEFAR, Unidad de Investigacion Multidisciplinaria, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlan, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
Daniel Hernandez-PatlanLaboratorio No 5: LEDEFAR, Unidad de Investigacion Multidisciplinaria, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlan, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
Bruno Solis-CruzLaboratorio No 5: LEDEFAR, Unidad de Investigacion Multidisciplinaria, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlan, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
Xochitl Hernandez-VelascoDepartamento de Medicina y Zootecnia de Aves, Facultad de Medicina Veterinaria y Zootecnia, UNAM, Mexico, Mexico.
Fernando Alba-HurtadoDepartamento de Ciencias Biologicas, Facultad de Estudios Superiores Cuautitlan, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
Christine N VuongDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA.
Inkar Castellanos-HuertaPrograma de Doctorado en Ciencias de la Salud y Producción Animal, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Estado de Mexico, Mexico.
Guillermo Tellez-IsaiasDepartment of Poultry Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA. gtellez@uark.edu.
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México · MXUniversidad de Cuautitlán Izcalli · MXUniversity of Arkansas at Fayetteville · USPolytechnic University of the Valley of Mexico · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this pilot study was to evaluate and determine the concentration of prostaglandin GF2α (PGF2α) and isoprostane 8-iso-PGF2α in plasma and intestine of specific pathogen-free (SPF) Leghorn chickens challenged with Eimeria maxima, with or without dietary supplementation of curcumin using solid-phase microextraction and ultra-performance liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Eighty 1-day-old male SPF chickens were randomly allocated to one of four groups with four replicates (n = 5 chickens/replicate). Groups consisted of: (1) Control (no challenge), (2) Curcumin (no challenge), (3) Eimeria maxima (challenge), and (4) Eimeria maxima (challenge) + curcumin. At day 28 of age, all chickens in the challenge groups were orally gavaged with 40,000 sporulated E. maxima oocysts. No significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed in the groups regardless of the treatment or challenge with E. maxima. Enteric levels of both isoprostane 8-iso-PGF2α and PGF2α at 7 days and 9 days post-challenge were significantly increased (P < 0.01) compared to the non-challenge control chickens. Interestingly, the enteric levels of both isoprostane 8-iso-PGF2α and PGF2α at 7 days post-challenge were significantly reduced in chickens fed curcumin, compared to control chickens challenge with E. maxima. At 9 days post-challenge, only levels of isoprostane 8-iso-PGF2α in the enteric samples were significantly reduced in chickens challenged with E. maxima supplemented with curcumin, compared with E. maxima challenge chickens. No differences of isoprostane 8-iso-PGF2α or PGF2α were observed in plasma at both days of evaluation. Similarly, no significant differences were observed between the challenge control or chickens challenge with E. maxima and supplemented with curcumin at both times of evaluation. The results of this pilot study suggests that the antioxidant anti-inflammatory properties of curcumin reduced the oxidative damage and subsequent intestinal mucosal over-production of lipid oxidation products. Further studies to confirm and extend these results in broiler chickens are required.

Indexed as

Animal FeedAnimalsAnimals, NewbornAnti-Inflammatory AgentsChickensCoccidiosisCurcuminDietary SupplementsDinoprostEimeriaInflammationIntestinal MucosaMaleOocystsOxidative StressPoultry Diseases8-epi-prostaglandin F2alphaAnti-Inflammatory AgentsCurcuminDinoprost

Identifiers

PMID34078952
PMCPMC8172875
OpenAlexW3164511759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.