ArticlePloS one2023
Accentuating the positive and eliminating the negative: Efficacy of TiO2 as digestibility index marker for poultry nutrition studies.
Article in PloS one, 2023. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Phosphorus-specific, liquid chromatography inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry for analysis of inositol phosphate and inositol pyrophosphate metabolism.The Biochemical journal · 2025Article
- Effects of Feeding Methionine Hydroxyl Analogue Chelated Zinc, Copper, and Manganese on Growth Performance, Nutrient Digestibility, Mineral Excretion and Welfare Conditions of Broiler Chickens: Part 1: Performance Aspects.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Analysis of Inositol Phosphates, Diphosphoinositol Phosphates, and Their Analogs by HPLC on an Acid-Compatible Stationary Phase with Detection by Complexation with Ferric Ion.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Inert digestibility index markers such as titanium dioxide are universally accepted to provide simple measurement of digestive tract retention and relative digestibility in poultry feeding trials. Their use underpins industry practice: specifically dosing regimens for adjunct enzymes added to animal feed. Among these, phytases, enzymes that degrade dietary phytate, inositol hexakisphosphate, represent a billion-dollar sector in an industry that raises ca. 70 billion chickens/annum. Unbeknown to the feed enzyme sector, is the growth in cell biology of use of titanium dioxide for enrichment of inositol phosphates from extracts of cells and tissues. The adoption of titanium dioxide in cell biology arises from its affinity under acid conditions for phosphates, suggesting that in feeding trial contexts that target phytate degradation this marker may not be as inert as assumed. We show that feed grade titanium dioxide enriches a mixed population of higher and lower inositol phosphates from acid solutions. Additionally, we compared the extractable inositol phosphates in gizzard and ileal digesta of 21day old male Ross 308 broilers fed three phytase doses (0, 500 and 6000 FTU/kg feed) and one inositol dose (2g/kg feed). This experiment was performed with or without titanium dioxide added as a digestibility index marker at a level of 0.5%, with all diets fed for 21 days. Analysis yielded no significant difference in effect of phytase inclusion in the presence or absence of titanium dioxide. Thus, despite the utility of titanium dioxide for recovery of inositol phosphates from biological samples, it seems that its use as an inert marker in digestibility trials is justified-as its inclusion in mash diets does not interfere with the recovery of inositol phosphates from digesta samples.
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.