ArticleJournal of animal physiology and animal nutrition2026
The Efficacy of Food-Grade Substances to Protect Dietary Glutamine From Ruminal Degradation.
Article in Journal of animal physiology and animal nutrition, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
This study was conducted to investigate the use of four, low cost, food-grade substances to protect glutamine from microbial degradation in vitro, and subsequently validate their efficacy in vivo. Two in vitro trials were conducted using 250 mL bottles replicated in triplicate to test beeswax-, paraffin wax-, zein-, and rice bran wax-encapsulated glutamine (GlnFS1, GlnFS2, GlnFS3 and GlnFS4, respectively) compared to control (blank) and negative controls (GlnC, FS1, FS2, FS3 and FS4). Ammonium analysis was conducted to evaluate the degradation of glutamine at 30, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, 420 and 480 min post inoculation. To further test the efficacy of the two most protective food-grade substances in vivo, 16 Merino wethers (initial liveweight 53.75 ± 4.25 kg; 12 months old) were allocated to one of the treatments: control (n = 3), GlnC (n = 3), GlnFS1 (n = 5), and GlnFS2 (n = 5). Treatments were administered via oral syringe and bloods were taken via a jugular catheter every hour over 12 h post supplementation. Blood parameters including blood gases and plasma amino acid analyses were performed. The in vitro trial data were analysed using REML and area under the curve by R Software. Mixed models by SAS Software were used to analyse the in vivo data. All food-grade substances protected glutamine from microbial degradation, with the highest protection observed for GlnFS1 and GlnFS2 (35.7% and 26.4%, respectively) compared to the GlnC in the in vitro trials. In the in vivo trial, an interaction between treatment and timepoint was observed for blood sodium (p = 0.004). The blood pH of GlnFS1 and GlnFS2 were higher than control and GlnC (p = 0.039). Alanine (p = 0.049), glutamine (p = 0.015), and histidine (p < 0.001) were elevated in GlnC compared to other treatment groups (control, GlnFS1, and GlnFS2). A higher concentration of plasma glutamine was detected in the blood of GlnC wethers with no significant difference from the control group. Future studies must evaluate the bioavailability of GlnFS1 and GlnFS2 in vivo.
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.