Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40775755›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2025

The effects of formula milk on development, nutrient absorption, and immune characteristics of piglets.

Chuang Tang, Zhengjiang Liu, Lu Lu, Bo Zeng, Zhi Li, Ruohan Yang, Duoduo Zhang, Xiaolan Fan, Jiaxue Cao, Haohuan Li and 7 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Chuang TangState Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Zhengjiang LiuCollege of Life Science, Sichuan Agricultural University, Ya'an, 625014, China.
Lu LuState Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Bo ZengState Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Zhi LiChongqing Academy of Animal Sciences, China,National Center of Technology Innovation for Pig, Chongqing, Chongqing, 402460, China.
Ruohan YangCollege of Life Science, Sichuan Agricultural University, Ya'an, 625014, China.
Duoduo ZhangState Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Xiaolan FanState Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Jiaxue CaoState Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Haohuan LiState Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China.
Jing SunChongqing Academy of Animal Sciences, China,National Center of Technology Innovation for Pig, Chongqing, Chongqing, 402460, China.
Jinwei ZhangChongqing Academy of Animal Sciences, China,National Center of Technology Innovation for Pig, Chongqing, Chongqing, 402460, China.
Xiaoyuan WeiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, 33612, USA.
Wei SunJoint International Research Laboratory of Agriculture and Agri-Product Safety of Ministry of Education of China, International Joint Research Laboratory in Universities of Jiangsu Province of China for Domestic Animal Germplasm Resources and Genetic Improvement, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, 225009, China.
Liangpeng GeChongqing Academy of Animal Sciences, China,National Center of Technology Innovation for Pig, Chongqing, Chongqing, 402460, China.
Mingzhou LiState Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China. mingzhou.li@sicau.edu.cn.
Fanli KongState Key Laboratory of Swine and Poultry Breeding Industry, Sichuan Agricultural University, Chengdu, 611130, China. fkong@sicau.edu.cn.

Funding

National Key R & D Program of China 2022YFF1000100, 2023YFD1300400, 2022YFD1301200the National Natural Science Foundation of China 32202630, 32421005, 32225046 and 32202623
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast milk is widely regarded as the optimal nourishment for infants. However, due to physiological or psychosocial factors, many infants do not receive adequate breastfeeding. So, the formula milk is proposed as a substitute of breast milk, and an increasing number of infants are being formula-fed. Numerous studies have highlighted the difference between breast and formula feeding, but the underlying mechanisms remain elusive. Given the ethical constraints in conducting experimental studies on human breastfeeding, we employed pig, which have similar physiological structure with humans, to examine the impacts of different feeding practices.

resultsIn this study, we found that effects of feeding practices were primarily associated with absorption, immunity, and the intestinal barrier. Compared to breast-fed piglets, formula-fed piglets had higher body weight (P = 3.31 × 10

conclusionsIn summary, this study comprehensively investigated the effects of feeding practice on piglet at the molecular level and provided valuable data for the development and application of formula milk.

Indexed as

Infant FormulaIntestinal AbsorptionMilkNutrientsAnimalsBody WeightFemaleHumansSwineNutrientsAbsorptionBreastfeedingFormula milkIntestinal barrierIntestinePig

Identifiers

PMID40775755
PMCPMC12333285

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.