Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35176705›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2022

Influence of light supplement on duck sternal calcification from integrated analysis of metabolome and transcriptome.

Q F Wu, H H Liu, Q L Yang, F J Pu, B Wei, L Y Wang, J P Li, B Hu, J W Hu, R P Zhang and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

17 authors.

Q F WuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China; Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food Engineering, Yibin University, Yibin, 644000, China.
H H LiuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Q L YangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
F J PuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
B WeiFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
L Y WangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
J P LiFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
B HuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
J W HuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
R P ZhangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
C C HanFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
H HeFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
B KangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
H Y XuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
S Q HuFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
J W WangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
L LiangFarm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China. Electronic address: ll457@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Calcification of bones is the critical process of bone development in birds, which is very important for sustaining the normal biological function of bones. Light is one of the vital factors affecting bone development, but whether light intensity affects bone calcification and the underlying mechanism is still unknown. In this study, we used duck sternum as a model to analyze the calcification process under different light regimes. In addition, the underlying mechanism was also illustrated by integrating metabolomics and transcriptome methods. The experiment lasted from 14 to 51 d of duck age. The control group (LP1) kept light intensity 2 lx during the whole experiment. The two light supplement groups (LP2, LP3) were given light with the intensity of 70 lx at different time (14-29 d for LP2, 14-43 d for LP3). Samples were collected at 52 d of duck age. Sternal calcification analysis showed no significant difference in proportion of area of cartilage matrix and trabecular bone in keel tissue among the 3 groups, but the degree of keel calcification in LP3 was higher than in the other 2 groups. Serum metabolomics showed 32 and 28 differentially accumulated metabolites (DAMs) in the 2 comparison groups, LP1 vs. LP3 and LP1 vs. LP2, respectively. Carboxylic acids and derivatives were the most abundant among the DAMs. Sternal transcriptome analysis showed 231 differentially expressed genes (DEGs), including 177 upregulated genes and 54 downregulated genes in group LP1 vs. LP3, and 22 DEGs in group LP1 vs. LP2. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis on DEGs between LP1 and LP3 showed that genes BTRC, GLI1, BMP4, and FOS were in the core position of the interaction network, and are also involved in bone development. KEGG pathway analysis of DAMs and DEGs showed that differences in Hedgehog signaling pathway, MAPK signaling pathway, apoptosis, energy metabolism, and amino acid metabolism following light treatment seem likely to have contributed to the observed difference in calcification of duck sternum.

Indexed as

DucksTranscriptomeAnimalsChickensGene Expression ProfilingHedgehog ProteinsMetabolomeSternumHedgehog Proteinsducklight supplementmetabolomesternal calcificationtranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID35176705
PMCPMC8851249

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.