Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:10343917rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1135183lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10343917lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0032105lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10343917lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0037663lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10343917lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0178602lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10343917lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0205081lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10343917lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0021665lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10343917lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0442805lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10343917lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1149301lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:issue3lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:dateCreated1999-7-1lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:abstractTextThe growth rate of the young pig is generally much less than its potential and may be constrained by endocrine status as well as by nutrient intake. The aim of this study was to determine whether porcine somatotropin (pST) could increase growth in the nursing pig. Fourteen sows nursing litters of 6 (n = 7) or 12 (n = 7) piglets were utilized to establish a high and low plane of nutrition for sucking pigs. On Day 4 of lactation, the median two male pigs from each litter were randomly allocated to one of two doses of pST (0 or 60 micrograms/kg/d) until weaning on Day 31. Pigs were bled on Days 4, 13, 22, and 31 of lactation and the plasma was analyzed for insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-I, IGF-II, and IGF binding protein-3 (IGFBP-3). Pigs were weaned into conventional accommodation and further weighed on Days 63, 91, and 119. Pigs from litters of 6 grew more quickly and weighed 2.2 kg (P = 0.01) and 3.5 kg (P = 0.04) more than pigs from litters of 12 at 31 and 63 d of age, respectively. There was no effect of pST on preweaning growth of sucking pigs (261 vs. 258 g/d, P = 0.68), although growth rate increased in the final 3 d before weaning at 31 d (241 vs. 294 g/d, P = 0.01). IGFBP-3 was greater (1.09 vs. 0.78 micrograms/ml, P < 0.001), whereas IGF-I tended to be greater (206 vs. 176 ng/ml, P = 0.14), in pigs from the small litters. There was no effect of pST on plasma IGF-I (182 vs. 195 ng/ml, P = 0.454) or IGFBP-3 (0.93 vs. 0.94 microgram/ml, P = 0.85) concentrations. Plasma IGF-I and IGFBP-3 were highly correlated with the growth rate of nursing pigs (R = 0.638 and 0.756, respectively). There were no effects of pST (340 vs. 328 ng/ml, P = 0.48) or litter size (336 vs. 333 ng/ml, P = 0.88) on IGF-II. In conclusion, pST had no little or no effect on growth performance or plasma IGF-I, IGF-II, or IGFBP-3 in sucking pigs on either a high or low plane of nutrition.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:monthAprlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:issn0739-7240lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:authorpubmed-author:KingR HRHlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:authorpubmed-author:OwensP CPClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:authorpubmed-author:DunsheaF RFRlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:authorpubmed-author:WaltonP EPElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:volume16lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:pagination149-57lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:dateRevised2003-11-14lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10343917...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10343917...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10343917...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10343917...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10343917...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10343917...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10343917...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10343917...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10343917...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:10343917...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:year1999lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:articleTitleModerate doses of porcine somatotropin do not increase plasma insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) or IGF binding protein-3.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:affiliationVictorian Institute of Animal Science, Werribee, Australia.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:publicationTypeClinical Triallld:pubmed
pubmed-article:10343917pubmed:publicationTypeRandomized Controlled Triallld:pubmed
http://linkedlifedata.com/r...pubmed:referesTopubmed-article:10343917lld:pubmed