Literature DB >> 2575122

Interspecific variation in sugar and amino acid transport by the avian cecum.

B S Obst1, J M Diamond.   

Abstract

Previous studies of cecal sugar and amino acid transport in the domestic chicken led to a widely held generalization that the avian cecum is unimportant as a site of nutrient transport. In fact, we found that the uptake capacity of the cecum for hexose sugars and amino acids is substantial in some species of birds. Cecal transport of glucose was measurable in all five study species (Canada goose, sage grouse, domestic chicken, red-necked phalarope, and rock dove), approached or exceeded intestinal levels in the grouse and phalarope, and accounted for between 0.1% (rock dove) and 49% (sage grouse) of the whole gut's integrated uptake capacity. Proline uptake averaged higher in the proximal portion of the cecum than in any region of the small intestine for all species but the goose. The ceca contributed between 2% (rock dove) and 25% (sage grouse) of the gut's integrated uptake capacity for proline. Similar ranges were found for fructose, lysine, leucine, and aspartate. Future studies should be undertaken to search for phylogenetic and ecological correlates of the interspecific variation in cecal transport and to determine how nutrient transport integrates with other functions of the avian cecum.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1989        PMID: 2575122     DOI: 10.1002/jez.1402520519

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Zool Suppl        ISSN: 1059-8324


  9 in total

1.  Monoterpenes as inhibitors of digestive enzymes and counter-adaptations in a specialist avian herbivore.

Authors:  Kevin D Kohl; Elizabeth Pitman; Brecken C Robb; John W Connelly; M Denise Dearing; Jennifer Sorensen Forbey
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 2.200

2.  Modulation of digestive enzyme activities in the avian digestive tract in relation to diet composition and quality.

Authors:  Kevin D Kohl; M Eugenia Ciminari; Juan G Chediack; James O Leafloor; William H Karasov; Scott R McWilliams; Enrique Caviedes-Vidal
Journal:  J Comp Physiol B       Date:  2016-10-01       Impact factor: 2.200

3.  Comparison of fecal and cecal microbiotas reveals qualitative similarities but quantitative differences.

Authors:  Dragana Stanley; Mark S Geier; Honglei Chen; Robert J Hughes; Robert J Moore
Journal:  BMC Microbiol       Date:  2015-02-27       Impact factor: 3.605

Review 4.  Genetic aspects of feed efficiency and reduction of environmental footprint in broilers: a review.

Authors:  Ewa Sell-Kubiak; Klaus Wimmers; Henry Reyer; Tomasz Szwaczkowski
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 5.  The gastrointestinal microbiome and its association with the control of pathogens in broiler chicken production: A review.

Authors:  Viviana Clavijo; Martha Josefina Vives Flórez
Journal:  Poult Sci       Date:  2018-03-01       Impact factor: 3.352

6.  Efficacy of Fecal Sampling as a Gut Proxy in the Study of Chicken Gut Microbiota.

Authors:  Wei Yan; Congjiao Sun; Jiangxia Zheng; Chaoliang Wen; Congliang Ji; Dexiang Zhang; Yonghua Chen; Zhuocheng Hou; Ning Yang
Journal:  Front Microbiol       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 5.640

Review 7.  Large intestinal dynamics differ between fowl and swine: Anatomical modifications, microbial collaboration, and digestive advantages from fibrolytic enzymes.

Authors:  Edwin T Moran; Michael R Bedford
Journal:  Anim Nutr       Date:  2022-07-22

8.  Extensive microbial and functional diversity within the chicken cecal microbiome.

Authors:  Martin J Sergeant; Chrystala Constantinidou; Tristan A Cogan; Michael R Bedford; Charles W Penn; Mark J Pallen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-21       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Microbial communities of poultry house dust, excreta and litter are partially representative of microbiota of chicken caecum and ileum.

Authors:  Yugal R Bindari; Robert J Moore; Thi Thu Hao Van; Matthew Hilliar; Shu-Biao Wu; Stephen W Walkden-Brown; Priscilla F Gerber
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-08-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.