Supplemental material for "Bioavailability of rumen-protected histidine, lysine, and methionine assessed using different in vivo methods"

The objective of this experiment was to estimate the bioavailability (BA) of rumen-protected (RP) His, RPLys and 2 RPMet products using 3 in vivo methods: the area-under-the curve (AUC), plasma dose-response (PDR), and the fecal free AA (FFAA) methods. Eight rumen-cannulated cows were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin Square experiment, with 16 d periods. Treatments were (1) abomasal dosing/infusion of water (Control), (2) abomasal dosing/infusion of free His, Lys and Met (FAA), (3) dietary inclusion of RPHis + RPLys + RPMet1 (RPAA1), and 4) dietary inclusion of RPHis + RPLys + RPMet2 (RPAA2). On d 7 of each experimental period a pulse-dose of water (Control) or FAA were administered into the abomasum of the cows or RPAA were placed directly in the rumen and blood samples were taken from the jugular vein through a catheter 11 times over a 24-h period. Following the AA pulse-dose, infusion lines were installed into the abomasum for continuous infusion of FAA from d 12 to d 16, and cows were fitted with urinary catheters for total collection of feces. Fecal collection and blood sampling were conducted from d 14 to 16 of each experimental period. Data for PDR method are reported in Supplemental Material. Relative BA based on the AUC method was lower for RPMet1 compared with RPMet2 (43 vs. 61%) and was 45% (SEM = 3.35) and 82% (SEM = 6.92), for RPHis and RPLys, respectively. Similarly, BA based on the FFAA method was lower for RPMet1 (67%) compared with RPMet 2 (91%) and was 87 (SEM = 0.71) and 75% (SEM = 2.75) for RPHis and RPLys, respectively. The relative differences in estimated BA based on both the AUC and FFAA methods between the RPMet products were as expected, based on literature, and data for all 4 RPAA products corresponded well with previously estimated BA using the FFAA method. Variability in BA data and differences in estimated BA between the in vivo methods highlight the current challenges for accurate measurements of relative in vivo BA of RPAA products. Different protection technologies may call for different methodology to be used for BA estimations. Further research and standardization of in vivo BA methods are warranted.

Files

Metadata

Work Title Supplemental material for "Bioavailability of rumen-protected histidine, lysine, and methionine assessed using different in vivo methods"
Access
Open Access
Creators
  1. Susanna E. Räisänen
  2. Derek E. Wasson
  3. Sergio F. Cueva
  4. Taina Silvestre
  5. Alexander N. Hristov
License CC BY 4.0 (Attribution)
Work Type Other
Publication Date 2024
DOI doi:10.26207/c6ce-zk65
Related URLs
Deposited July 15, 2024

Versions

Analytics

Collections

This resource is currently not in any collection.

Work History

Version 1
published

  • Created
  • Updated
  • Added Creator Susanna Räisänen
  • Added Creator Derek Wasson
  • Added Creator Sergio Cueva Welchez
  • Added Creator Taina Silvestre
  • Added Creator Alexander Hristov
  • Added BA of RPAA JDS supplemental material.pdf
  • Added README.rtf
  • Added Creator M. Miura
  • Renamed Creator Alexander N. Hristov Show Changes
    • Alexander Hristov
    • Alexander N. Hristov
  • Updated Description, Publication Date Show Changes
    Description
    • The objective of this experiment was to estimate the bioavailability (BA) of rumen-protected (RP) His, RPLys and 2 RPMet products using 3 in vivo methods: the area-under-the curve (AUC), plasma dose-response (PDR), and the fecal free AA (FFAA) methods. Eight rumen-cannulated cows were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin Square experiment, with 16 d periods. Treatments were (1) abomasal dosing of water (Control), (2) abomasal dosing/infusion of free His, Lys and Met (FAA), (3) dietary inclusion of RPHis + RPLys + RPMet1 (RPAA1), and 4) dietary inclusion of RPHis + RPLys + RPMet2 (RPAA2). On d 7 of each experimental period a pulse-dose of water (Control) or FAA were administered into the abomasum of the cows or RPAA were placed directly in the rumen and blood samples were taken from the jugular vein through a catheter 11 times over a 24-h period. Following the AA pulse-dose, infusion lines were installed into the abomasum for continuous infusion of FAA from d 12 to d 16, and cows were fitted with urinary catheters for total collection of feces. Fecal collection and blood sampling were conducted from d 14 to 16 of each experimental period. Data for PDR method are reported in Supplemental Material. Relative BA based on the AUC method was lower for RPMet1 compared with RPMet2 (43 vs. 61%) and was 45% (SEM = 3.35) and 82% (SEM = 6.92), for RPHis and RPLys, respectively. Similarly, relative BA based on the FFAA method was lower for RPMet1 (67%) compared with RPMet 2 (91%) and was 75 (SEM = 2.75) and 87% (SEM = 0.71) for RPLys and RPHis, respectively. The relative differences in estimated BA based on both the AUC and FFAA methods between the RPMet products were as expected, based on literature, and data for all 4 RPAA products corresponded well with previously estimated BA using the FFAA method. Variability in BA data and differences in estimated BA between the in vivo methods highlight the current challenges for accurate measurements of relative in vivo BA of RPAA products. Different protection technologies may call for different methodology to be used for BA estimations. Further research and standardization of in vivo BA methods are warranted.
    Publication Date
    • 2024
  • Updated Description, Publication Date Show Changes
    Description
    • The objective of this experiment was to estimate the bioavailability (BA) of rumen-protected (RP) His, RPLys and 2 RPMet products using 3 in vivo methods: the area-under-the curve (AUC), plasma dose-response (PDR), and the fecal free AA (FFAA) methods. Eight rumen-cannulated cows were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin Square experiment, with 16 d periods. Treatments were (1) abomasal dosing of water (Control), (2) abomasal dosing/infusion of free His, Lys and Met (FAA), (3) dietary inclusion of RPHis + RPLys + RPMet1 (RPAA1), and 4) dietary inclusion of RPHis + RPLys + RPMet2 (RPAA2). On d 7 of each experimental period a pulse-dose of water (Control) or FAA were administered into the abomasum of the cows or RPAA were placed directly in the rumen and blood samples were taken from the jugular vein through a catheter 11 times over a 24-h period. Following the AA pulse-dose, infusion lines were installed into the abomasum for continuous infusion of FAA from d 12 to d 16, and cows were fitted with urinary catheters for total collection of feces. Fecal collection and blood sampling were conducted from d 14 to 16 of each experimental period. Data for PDR method are reported in Supplemental Material. Relative BA based on the AUC method was lower for RPMet1 compared with RPMet2 (43 vs. 61%) and was 45% (SEM = 3.35) and 82% (SEM = 6.92), for RPHis and RPLys, respectively. Similarly, relative BA based on the FFAA method was lower for RPMet1 (67%) compared with RPMet 2 (91%) and was 75 (SEM = 2.75) and 87% (SEM = 0.71) for RPLys and RPHis, respectively. The relative differences in estimated BA based on both the AUC and FFAA methods between the RPMet products were as expected, based on literature, and data for all 4 RPAA products corresponded well with previously estimated BA using the FFAA method. Variability in BA data and differences in estimated BA between the in vivo methods highlight the current challenges for accurate measurements of relative in vivo BA of RPAA products. Different protection technologies may call for different methodology to be used for BA estimations. Further research and standardization of in vivo BA methods are warranted.
    Publication Date
    • 2024
  • Updated License Show Changes
    License
    • https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
  • Updated Description Show Changes
    Description
    • The objective of this experiment was to estimate the bioavailability (BA) of rumen-protected (RP) His, RPLys and 2 RPMet products using 3 in vivo methods: the area-under-the curve (AUC), plasma dose-response (PDR), and the fecal free AA (FFAA) methods. Eight rumen-cannulated cows were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin Square experiment, with 16 d periods. Treatments were (1) abomasal dosing of water (Control), (2) abomasal dosing/infusion of free His, Lys and Met (FAA), (3) dietary inclusion of RPHis + RPLys + RPMet1 (RPAA1), and 4) dietary inclusion of RPHis + RPLys + RPMet2 (RPAA2). On d 7 of each experimental period a pulse-dose of water (Control) or FAA were administered into the abomasum of the cows or RPAA were placed directly in the rumen and blood samples were taken from the jugular vein through a catheter 11 times over a 24-h period. Following the AA pulse-dose, infusion lines were installed into the abomasum for continuous infusion of FAA from d 12 to d 16, and cows were fitted with urinary catheters for total collection of feces. Fecal collection and blood sampling were conducted from d 14 to 16 of each experimental period. Data for PDR method are reported in Supplemental Material. Relative BA based on the AUC method was lower for RPMet1 compared with RPMet2 (43 vs. 61%) and was 45% (SEM = 3.35) and 82% (SEM = 6.92), for RPHis and RPLys, respectively. Similarly, relative BA based on the FFAA method was lower for RPMet1 (67%) compared with RPMet 2 (91%) and was 75 (SEM = 2.75) and 87% (SEM = 0.71) for RPLys and RPHis, respectively. The relative differences in estimated BA based on both the AUC and FFAA methods between the RPMet products were as expected, based on literature, and data for all 4 RPAA products corresponded well with previously estimated BA using the FFAA method. Variability in BA data and differences in estimated BA between the in vivo methods highlight the current challenges for accurate measurements of relative in vivo BA of RPAA products. Different protection technologies may call for different methodology to be used for BA estimations. Further research and standardization of in vivo BA methods are warranted.
    • The objective of this experiment was to estimate the bioavailability (BA) of rumen-protected (RP) His, RPLys and 2 RPMet products using 3 in vivo methods: the area-under-the curve (AUC), plasma dose-response (PDR), and the fecal free AA (FFAA) methods. Eight rumen-cannulated cows were used in a replicated 4 × 4 Latin Square experiment, with 16 d periods. Treatments were (1) abomasal dosing/infusion of water (Control), (2) abomasal dosing/infusion of free His, Lys and Met (FAA), (3) dietary inclusion of RPHis + RPLys + RPMet1 (RPAA1), and 4) dietary inclusion of RPHis + RPLys + RPMet2 (RPAA2). On d 7 of each experimental period a pulse-dose of water (Control) or FAA were administered into the abomasum of the cows or RPAA were placed directly in the rumen and blood samples were taken from the jugular vein through a catheter 11 times over a 24-h period. Following the AA pulse-dose, infusion lines were installed into the abomasum for continuous infusion of FAA from d 12 to d 16, and cows were fitted with urinary catheters for total collection of feces. Fecal collection and blood sampling were conducted from d 14 to 16 of each experimental period. Data for PDR method are reported in Supplemental Material. Relative BA based on the AUC method was lower for RPMet1 compared with RPMet2 (43 vs. 61%) and was 45% (SEM = 3.35) and 82% (SEM = 6.92), for RPHis and RPLys, respectively. Similarly, BA based on the FFAA method was lower for RPMet1 (67%) compared with RPMet 2 (91%) and was 87 (SEM = 0.71) and 75% (SEM = 2.75) for RPHis and RPLys, respectively. The relative differences in estimated BA based on both the AUC and FFAA methods between the RPMet products were as expected, based on literature, and data for all 4 RPAA products corresponded well with previously estimated BA using the FFAA method. Variability in BA data and differences in estimated BA between the in vivo methods highlight the current challenges for accurate measurements of relative in vivo BA of RPAA products. Different protection technologies may call for different methodology to be used for BA estimations. Further research and standardization of in vivo BA methods are warranted.
  • Deleted Creator M. Miura
  • Renamed Creator Susanna E. Räisänen Show Changes
    • Susanna Räisänen
    • Susanna E. Räisänen
  • Renamed Creator Derek E. Wasson Show Changes
    • Derek Wasson
    • Derek E. Wasson
  • Renamed Creator Sergio F. Cueva Show Changes
    • Sergio Cueva Welchez
    • Sergio F. Cueva
  • Updated Creator Alexander N. Hristov
  • Deleted BA of RPAA JDS supplemental material.pdf
  • Deleted README.rtf
  • Added BA of RPAA JDS supplemental material.pdf
  • Added README.rtf
  • Published
  • Updated

Version 2
published

  • Created
  • Deleted BA of RPAA JDS supplemental material.pdf
  • Added BA of RPAA JDS supplemental material_Updated Oct'24.pdf
  • Published
  • Updated
  • Updated Related URLs Show Changes
    Related URLs
    • https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2024-25437