Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37226537›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2023

A comparative study on in vitro and in vivo stomach-small intestinal and large intestinal digestion of plant protein meals in growing pigs.

Zhongyuan Du, Lixiang Gao, Yuming Wang, Jingjing Xie, Shuli Zeng, Jiangtao Zhao, Renna Sa, Feng Zhao

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 26% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. ComparativeFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zhongyuan DuState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.
Lixiang GaoWen's Food Group Co. Ltd., Guangdong 527439, China.
Yuming WangState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.
Jingjing XieState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4343-2519
Shuli ZengState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.
Jiangtao ZhaoWen's Food Group Co. Ltd., Guangdong 527439, China.
Renna SaState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.
Feng ZhaoState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition, Institute of Animal Sciences of Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China.
Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CNWen's Food Group (China) · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This experiment evaluated the difference between computer-controlled simulated digestion and in vivo stomach-small intestinal or large intestinal digestion for growing pigs. Five diets including a corn-soybean meal basal diet and four experimental diets with rapeseed meal (RSM), cottonseed meal (CSM), sunflower meal (SFM), or peanut meal (PNM) were assigned to each group of five barrows installed terminal ileal cannula or distal cecal cannula in a 5 × 5 Latin square design. Ileal digesta and feces were collected for the determination of digestibility of dry matter (DM) and gross energy (GE) as well as digestible energy (DE) at terminal ileum and total tract. The large intestinal digestibility and DE were calculated by the difference between measurements obtained at the terminal ileum and those obtained from total tract. In vitro stomach-small intestinal digestibility and DE for diets and plant protein meals were determined by stomach-small intestinal digestion in a computer-controlled simulated digestion system (CCSDS). The in vitro large intestinal digestibility and DE of diets were determined in a CCSDS using ileal digesta and enzymes extracted from cecal digesta of pigs. The in vitro large intestinal digestibility and DE of four plant protein meals were determined by the difference between stomach-small intestinal and total tract digestion in the CCSDS. For the experimental diets, the in vitro ileal digestibility and DE were not different from corresponding in vivo values in basal diet and PNM diet, but greater than corresponding in vivo values for diets with RSM, CSM, and SFM (P < 0.05). No difference was observed between in vitro and in vivo large intestinal digestibility and DE in five diets. For the feed ingredients, the in vitro ileal digestibility and DE did not differ from corresponding in vivo ileal values in RSM and PNM but were greater than the in vivo ileal values in CSM and SFM (P < 0.05). The in vitro large intestinal GE digestibility and DE were not different from in vivo large intestinal values in RSM, CSM, and PNM, but lower than in vivo large intestinal values in SFM. This finding may relate to the higher fiber content of plant protein meals resulting in shorter digestion time of in vivo stomach-small intestine thus lower digestibility compared to in vitro, indicating it is necessary to optimize in vitro stomach-small intestinal digestion time.

Indexed as

Brassica napusBrassica rapaHelianthusAnimal FeedAnimal Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaAnimalsArachisDietDigestionFecesGlycine maxIleumStomachSwineZea maysin vitro digestionlarge intestinepigplant protein mealsstomach–small intestine

Identifiers

PMID37226537
PMCPMC10290501
OpenAlexW4378172300

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.