17 research outputs found

    Productive performance, carcass and meat quality of intact and castrated gilts slaughtered at 106 or 122 kg BW

    Get PDF
    A total of 200 (Landrace3Large White dam3Pietrain3Large White sire) gilts of 5063 days of age (23.361.47 kg BW) were used to investigate the effects of castration (intact gilt, IG v. castrated gilt, CG) and slaughter weight (SW; 106 v. 122 kg BW) on productive performance, carcass and meat quality. Four treatments were arranged factorially and five replicates of 10 pigs each per treatment. Half of the gilts were ovariectomized at 58 days of age (8 days after the beginning of the trial at 29.861.64 kg BW), whereas the other half remained intact. The pigs were slaughtered at 106 or 122 kg BW. Meat samples were taken at Musculus longissimus thoracis at the level of the last rib and subcutaneous fat samples were taken at the tail insertion. For the entire experimental period, CG had higher ( P,0.05) BW gain and higher ( P,0.001) backfat and Musculus gluteus medius fat thickness than IG. However, IG had higher ( P,0.05) loin and trimmed primal cut yields than CG. Meat quality was similar for IG and CG but the proportion of linoleic acid in subcutaneous fat was higher ( P,0.001) for IG. Pigs slaughtered at 122 kg BW had higher ( P,0.001) feed intake and poorer feed efficiency than pigs slaughtered at 106 kg BW. An increase in SW improved ( P,0.001) carcass yield but decreased ( P,0.05) trimmed primal cut yield. Meat from pigs slaughtered at the heavier BW was redder (a*; P,0.001) and had more ( P,0.01) intramuscular fat and less thawing ( P,0.05) and cooking ( P,0.10) loss than meat from pigs slaughtered at the lighter BW. In addition, pigs slaughtered at 122 kg BW had less ( P,0.01) linoleic acid content in subcutaneous fat than pigs slaughtered at 106 kg BW. Castration of gilts and slaughtering at heavier BW are useful practices for the production of heavy pigs destined to the dry-cured industry in which a certain amount of fat in the carcass is required. In contrast, when the carcasses are destined to fresh meat production, IG slaughtered at 106 kg BW is a more efficient alternative

    Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

    Get PDF
    In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure fl ux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defi ned as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (inmost higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium ) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the fi eld understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation it is imperative to delete or knock down more than one autophagy-related gene. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways so not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field

    Assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials in the field of dentistry indexed in the Lilacs (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) database

    Full text link
    corecore