ArticleJournal of animal science2025
Feed restriction as a model for small intestinal permeability in nursery pigs.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of gut permeability in livestock: methods to study the effects of stress on gut permeability and energy consumption.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2026Article
- Synbiotic Diet PreventsCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reduced feed intake is a hallmark of many animal diseases and environmental conditions and has been shown to cause intestinal barrier dysfunction. As there are several markers and assays to evaluate intestinal barrier function, feed restriction may present a potential model to validate and compare multiple in vivo, ex vivo, and tissue markers of intestinal integrity. Forty-eight barrows (9.7 kg initial body weight) were fed for 7 d at feed intakes of 100%, 75%, 50%, or 25% of expected ad libitum feed intake. After which urine, and blood were taken for in vivo lactulose:mannitol analysis. Additional ileum samples were taken for examination of intestinal function including ex vivo tissue transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER), tissue fluorescein isothiocyanate-dextran (FD4) transport, as well as small intestinal villus height and crypt depth, and gene expression. Data were analyzed as an ANOVA as well as a contrast where 25% and 50% were combined, as were 75% and 100%. As expected, observed feed intake followed a linear pattern, as did body weight changes. Pigs fed ad libitum (100%) gained 3.8 kg whereas pigs fed at 75% restriction gained 2.5 kg, pigs fed at 50% restriction gained 1.2 kg and pigs fed at 25% lost 0.37 kg (P < 0.05). Results showed tissue changes in morphology in duodenum, jejunum and ileum at 25% and 50% feed restriction (P < 0.05). Specifically, pigs fed at 75% and 100% feed levels had on average a 26% greater villus height compared to pigs fed at 50% and 25% (P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in TEER, however there was also a tendency for a contrast difference for FD4 as well as for a significant increase in urinary lactulose:mannitol at 25% compared to 75% and 100% (P < 0.10). Similarly, pro-inflammatory gene marker, IL17A was increased at 25% feeding level compared to 75% and 100% (P < 0.05). Taken together, these data show that feed restriction may be a good model to compare validation methods for intestinal permeability and function, but that length of feed restriction may have reduced larger impacts on intestinal function observed in other studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.