Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36209604›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2022

Influence of different types of sugar on overfeeding performance-part of meat quality.

Zhaoyun Luo, Rongxue Wei, Yongqiang Teng, Rong Ning, Lili Bai, Cangcang Lu, Donghang Deng, Mariama Abdulai, Liang Li, Hehe Liu and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
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 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 43% 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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. 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

15 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Zhaoyun LuoKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Rongxue WeiKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Yongqiang TengKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Rong NingKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Lili BaiKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Cangcang LuKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Donghang DengKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Mariama AbdulaiKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Liang LiKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Hehe LiuKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Shengqiang HuKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Shouhai WeiKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Bo KangKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Hengyong XuKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China.
Chunchun HanKey Laboratory of Livestock and Poultry Multi-omics, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, College of Animal Science and Technology, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China; Farm Animal Genetic Resources Exploration and Innovation Key Laboratory of Sichuan Province, Sichuan Agricultural University, PR China. Electronic address: chunchunhai_510@163.com.
Sichuan Agricultural University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Previous research in our lab showed that 10% glucose, 10% fructose, and 10% sucrose can induce lipid deposition in goose fatty liver formation process more efficiently. However, whether the overfeeding diet supplement with sugar can affect the meat quality is unclear. The aim of this research was to estimate the meat quality of geese overfed with overfeeding diet adding with different types of sugar. The results indicated there were no significant differences in the diameter of muscle fiber, the muscle fiber density, pH0, pH24, the meat color, the cooking loss, the drip loss, the shear force and the dry matter in breast muscle and thigh muscle between corn flour groups and three sugars groups (P > 0.05). The crude fat content of breast muscle in fructose group was significantly higher than that in sucrose group (P < 0.05); the inosinic acid content of leg muscle in fructose group was significantly higher than that in the sucrose group (P < 0.05); the ratios of essential amino acids to total amino acids (EAA/TAA) in the breast muscle of maize flour group, fructose group, sucrose group and glucose group were 42%, 35%, 32% or 34%;57%, 64%, 64%, and 62%, respectively; the ratios of essential amino acids to total amino acids in leg muscle of maize flour group, fructose group, sucrose group and glucose group were 31%, 33%, 35%, and 34%, respectively. The contents of C16:1 and C18:1 n-9c in breast muscle in fructose group were significantly higher than that in sucrose group (P < 0.05). Compared with maize flour group, the contents of C18:0 and C20:0 were lower in leg muscle of sugar group (P < 0.05). Compared with the maize flour group, the activities of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-PX) in breast muscle were higher than those of sucrose group (P < 0.05), the total antioxidant capacity (T-AOC) levels in breast muscle was higher than that of fructose group and sucrose group (P < 0.05). Cluster analysis and principal component analysis (PCA) showed that there was no difference in meat quality between maize flour and sugar group. In conclusion, the overfeeding with maize flour supplement with 10% sugar had no evident influence on the meat quality.

Indexed as

Hydrogen PeroxideSugarsAmino AcidsAmino Acids, EssentialAnimalsChickensFructoseGeeseGlucoseMeatSucroseAmino AcidsAmino Acids, EssentialFructoseGlucoseHydrogen PeroxideSucroseSugarsfructoseglucosegoosemeat qualityoverfeedingsucrose

Identifiers

PMID36209604
PMCPMC9547294
OpenAlexW4293879620

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.