Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T11:10:08.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Effects of dietary l-arginine supplementation to gilts during early gestation on foetal survival, growth and myofiber formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2010

J. Bérard  and
G. Bee
J. Bérard
Affiliation:
Agroscope Liebefeld-Posieux, Research Station ALP, 1725 Posieux, Switzerland ETH Zurich, Institute of Animal Science, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
G. Bee*
Affiliation:
Agroscope Liebefeld-Posieux, Research Station ALP, 1725 Posieux, Switzerland
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The effects of l-arginine on porcine foetal development and myogenesis were determined. Twenty Swiss Large White gilts were randomly allocated to either the control (C) or l-arginine treatment (A). In addition to the standard gestation diet, A-sows received 26 g l-arginine daily from days 14 to 28 of gestation. At day 75 of pregnancy, sows were sacrificed and the number and weight of foetuses were recorded. From each litter, the lightest, heaviest and the ones with an average foetal weight (FtW) were selected. Primary (P), secondary (S) and total myofiber number as well as S/P ratio were determined in the semitendinosus (ST) and rhomboideus (RH) muscles. In A-sows, the number of viable foetuses (13.0 v. 9.3) and total FtW (4925 v. 3729 g) was greater (P ⩽ 0.04) than in C-sows. Compared to C-sow foetuses, the ST of A-sow foetuses had 7% more (17 699 v. 16 477; P = 0.04) P myofibers and the S/P ratio in both muscles was lower (ST = 20.3 v. 21.5; RH = 24.1 v. 27.1; P ⩽ 0.07). Regardless of the maternal diet, the S myofiber number and the S/P ratio in both muscles were greater (P ⩽ 0.01) in foetuses with a high FtW compared to low FtW. These data suggest that l-arginine supplemented to gilts during early gestation enhanced foetal survival and in the ST positively affected the primary phase of myofiber formation.

Keywords

argininefoetal survivalmyogenesispig
Type
Full Paper
Information
animal , Volume 4 , Issue 10 , October 2010 , pp. 1680 - 1687
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bee, G 2007. Birth weight of litters as a source of variation in postnatal growth, and carcass and meat quality. Advances in Pork Production 18, 191–196.Google Scholar
Berard, J, Kreuzer, M, Bee, G 2008. Effect of litter size and birth weight on growth, carcass and pork quality, and their relationship to postmortem proteolysis. Journal of Animal Science 86, 2357–2368.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dwyer, CM, Stickland, NC 1991. Sources of variation in myofiber number within and between litters of pigs. Animal Production 52, 527–533.Google Scholar
Dwyer, CM, Fletcher, JM, Stickland, NC 1993. Muscle cellularity and postnatal growth in the pig. Journal of Animal Science 71, 3339–3343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flynn, NE, Meininger, CJ, Haynes, TE, Wu, G 2002. Dossier: free amino acids in human health and pathologies – the metabolic basis of arginine nutrition and pharmacotherapy. Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy 56, 427–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foxcroft, GR 2007. Pre-natal programming of variation in post-natal performance – how and when? Advances in Pork Production 18, 167–189.Google Scholar
Foxcroft, GR, Dixon, WT, Novak, S, Putman, CT, Town, SC, Vinsky, MDA 2006. The biological basis for prenatal programming of postnatal performance in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, E105–E112.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gadsby, JE, Heap, RB, Burton, RD 1980. Estrogen production by blastocyst and early embryonic tissue of various species. Journal of Reproduction and Fertility 60, 409–417.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gardner, IA, Hird, DW, Franti, CE 1989. Neonatal survival in swine – effects of low birth-weight and clinical-disease. American Journal of Veterinary Research 50, 792–797.Google ScholarPubMed
Gaustad-Aas, AH, Ropstad, E, Karlberg, K, Hofmo, PO, Dahl, E 2002. Oestrone sulphate measurements for the prediction of small or large litters in pigs. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 43, 157–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gondret, F, Lefaucheur, L, Juin, H, Louveau, I, Lebret, B 2006. Low birth weight is associated with enlarged muscle fiber area and impaired meat tenderness of the longissimus muscle in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 84, 93–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gondret, F, Lefaucheur, L, Louveau, L, Lebret, B, Pichodo, X, Le Cozler, Y 2005. Influence of piglet birth weight on postnatal growth performance, tissue lipogenic capacity and muscle histological traits at market weight. Livestock Production Science 93, 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handel, SE, Stickland, NC 1987. Muscle cellularity and birth-weight. Animal Production 44, 311–317.Google Scholar
Hazeleger, W, Ramaekers, R, Smits, C, Kemp, B 2007. Effect of Progenos on placenta and fetal development in pigs. Journal of Animal Science 85, 98 [abstract].Google Scholar
Lefaucheur, L 2001. Myofiber typing and pig meat production. Slovenian Veterinary Research 38, 5–28.Google Scholar
Lefaucheur, L, Ecolan, P, Plantard, L, Gueguen, N 2002. New insights into muscle fiber types in the pig. Journal of Histochemistry & Cytochemistry 50, 719–730.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mateo, RD, Wu, G, Bazer, FW, Park, JC, Shinzato, L, Kim, SW 2007. Ditary l-arginine supplementation enhances the reproductive performance of gilts. Journal of Nutrition 137, 652–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nissen, PM, Jorgensen, PF, Oksbjerg, N 2004. Within-litter variation in muscle fiber characteristics, pig performance, and meat quality traits. Journal of Animal Science 82, 414–421.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Novaro, V, Gonzalez, E, Jawerbaum, A, Rettori, V, Canteros, G, Gimeno, MF 1997. Nitric oxide synthase regulation during embryonic implantation. Reproduction Fertility and Development 9, 557–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Père, MC, Etienne, M 2000. Uterine blood flow in sows: effects of pregnancy stage and litter size. Reproduction Nutrition Development 40, 369–382.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Picard, B, Lefaucheur, L, Berri, C, Duclos, MJ 2002. Muscle fibre ontogenesis in farm animal species. Reproduction Nutrition Development 42, 415–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pond, WG, Maurer, RR, Klindt, J 1991. Fetal organ response to maternal protein-deprivation during pregnancy in swine. Journal of Nutrition 121, 504–509.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pond, WG, Maurer, RR, Mersmann, HJ, Cummins, S 1992. Response of fetal and newborn piglets to maternal protein restriction during early or late pregnancy. Growth Development and Aging 56, 115–127.Google ScholarPubMed
Quiniou, N, Dagorn, J, Gaudre, D 2002. Variation of piglets’ birth weight and consequences on subsequent performance. Livestock Production Science 78, 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramaekers, P, Kemp, B, van der Lende, T 2006. Progenos in sows increases number of piglets born. Journal of Animal Science 84, 394 [abstract].Google Scholar
Rehfeldt, C, Kuhn, G 2006. Consequences of birth weight for postnatal growth performance and carcass quality in pigs as related to myogenesis. Journal of Animal Science 84, E113–E126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, LP, Redmer, DA 2001. Angiogenesis in the placenta. Biology of Reproduction 64, 1033–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reynolds, LP, Grazul-bilska, AT, Killilea, SD, Redmer, DA 1993. Angiogenesis in the female reproductive-system – patterns and mediators. Local Systems in Reproduction 96, 189–211.Google Scholar
Schoknecht, PA, Pond, WG, Mersmann, HJ, Maurer, RR 1993. Protein restriction during pregnancy affects postnatal growth in swine progeny. Journal of Nutrition 123, 1818–1825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoknecht, PA, Newton, GR, Weise, DE, Pond, WG 1994. Protein restriction in early-pregnancy alters fetal and placental growth and allantoic fluid proteins in swine. Theriogenology 42, 217–226.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slocum, RH, Cumming, JG 1991. Amino acid analysis of physiological samples. In Techniques in diagnostic human biochemical genetics; a laboratory manual (ed. FA Hommes), pp. 87–126. Wiley-Liss, NY, USA.Google Scholar
Sooranna, SR, Morris, NH, Steer, PJ 1995. Placental nitric oxide metabolism. Reproduction Fertility and Development 7, 1525–1531.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Town, SC, Patterson, JL, Pereira, CZ, Gourley, G, Foxcroft, GR 2005. Embryonic and fetal development in a commercial dam-line genotype. Animal Reproduction Science 85, 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigmore, PMC, Stickland, NC 1983. Muscle development in large and small pig fetuses. Journal of Anatomy 137, 235–245.Google ScholarPubMed
Wu, GY, Morrison, SM 1998. Arginine metabolism: nitric oxide and beyond. Biochemical Journal 336, 1–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, GY, Bazer, FW, Tuo, WB, Flynn, SP 1996. Unusual abundance of arginine and ornithine in porcine allantoic fluid. Biology of Reproduction 54, 1261–1265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, GY, Pond, WG, Flynn, SP, Ott, TL, Bazer, FW 1998. Maternal dietary protein deficiency decreases nitric oxide synthase and ornithine decarboxylase activities in placenta and endometrium of pigs during early gestation. Journal of Nutrition 128, 2395–2402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, GY, Bazer, FW, Cudd, TA, Meininger, CJ, Spencer, TE 2004. Maternal nutrition and fetal development. Journal of Nutrition 134, 2169–2172.Google ScholarPubMed
Zeng, X, Wang, F, Fan, X, Yang, W, Zhou, B, Li, P, Yin, Y, Wu, G, Wang, J 2008. Dietary arginine supplementation during early pregnancy enhances embryonic survival in rats. Journal of Nutrition 138, 1421–1425.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed