Statements in which the resource exists.
SubjectPredicateObjectContext
pubmed-article:9110208rdf:typepubmed:Citationlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1135183lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9110208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0033371lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9110208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0521425lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9110208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0597198lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9110208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1704632lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9110208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0871261lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9110208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0018270lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9110208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C2911692lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9110208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C1706817lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9110208lifeskim:mentionsumls-concept:C0870883lld:lifeskim
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:issue4lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:dateCreated1997-6-27lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:abstractTextProlactin, a member of the somatotropin-prolactin-placental lactogen gene family, increases feed intake and rate of weight gain in several species. To determine whether prolactin affects growth performance and carcass composition in swine, recombinant porcine prolactin (rpPRL) was administered to finishing hogs. Doses of 0, 2, 4, 8, and 16 mg of rpPRL/d and 4 mg of recombinant porcine somatotropin (rpST)/d were administered to groups of seven barrows and seven gilts initially weighing 75.0 +/- .2 kg for a 28-d period. Recombinant pPRL did not alter feed intake or growth rate or affect carcass composition. In addition, most growth-related blood variables did not change, although plasma IGF-I was increased in the 8 and 16 mg of rpPRL treatment groups. At slaughter, mammary development was apparent in rpPRL-treated gilts and was characterized by distended alveolar and ductal lumina and presence of secretory material. In rPST-treated hogs, feed intake was decreased 28% (P < .01), gain/feed was increased more in barrows than in gilts (59 vs 39%, treatment x sex interaction, P = .035), and growth rate was increased 22%, but in barrows only (treatment x sex interaction P = .005). Compared with those in control hogs, circulating concentrations of IGF-I, insulin, and glucose were 175, 311, and 22% higher, respectively, and of blood urea nitrogen were 62% lower in rpST-treated hogs (P < .05). These results suggest that rpPRL, at the doses administered, does not increase feed intake in finishing hogs in contrast to rats and other species.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:languageenglld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:journalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:citationSubsetIMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:chemicalhttp://linkedlifedata.com/r...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:statusMEDLINElld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:monthAprlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:issn0021-8812lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BaileC ACAlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:McLaughlinC...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:HintzR LRLlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:BuonomoF CFClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:VeenhuizenJ...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:ByattJ CJClld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:CurranD FDFlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:authorpubmed-author:McGrathM FMFlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:issnTypePrintlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:volume75lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:ownerNLMlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:authorsCompleteYlld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:pagination959-67lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:dateRevised2011-11-17lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:meshHeadingpubmed-meshheading:9110208-...lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:year1997lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:articleTitleGrowth performance, endocrine, and metabolite responses of finishing hogs to porcine prolactin.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:affiliationProtiva Unit of Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO 63198, USA.lld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:publicationTypeJournal Articlelld:pubmed
pubmed-article:9110208pubmed:publicationTypeComparative Studylld:pubmed