4.7 Review

Improving animal welfare status and meat quality through assessment of stress biomarkers: A critical review

期刊

MEAT SCIENCE
卷 197, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.109048

关键词

Physiological status; Serum biomarkers; Acute phase proteins; Heat shock proteins; Proteomics; Meat quality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stress biomarkers such as blood profiles, serum hormones, and physiological conditions can be used to assess the stress status of animals. Factors including previous exposure, genetics, stress adaptation, intensity, duration, and rearing practices contribute to variations in the expression of stress biomarkers. Meat proteomics, specifically the analysis of muscle protein expression, can predict meat quality and stress in animals before slaughter. Finding non-invasive, rapid, and accurate stress biomarkers is essential for objectively assessing stress in animals.
Stress induces various physiological and biochemical alterations in the animal body, which are used to assess the stress status of animals. Blood profiles, serum hormones, enzymes, and physiological conditions such as body temperature, heart, and breathing rate of animals are the most commonly used stress biomarkers in the livestock sector. Previous exposure, genetics, stress adaptation, intensity, duration, and rearing practices result in wide intra-and inter-animal variations in the expression of various stress biomarkers. The use of meat proteomics by adequately analyzing the expression of various muscle proteins such as heat shock proteins (HSPs), acute phase proteins (APPs), texture, and tenderness biomarkers help predict meat quality and stress in animals before slaughter. Thus, there is a need to identify non-invasive, rapid, and accurate stress biomarkers that can objec-tively assess stress in animals. The present manuscript critically reviews various aspects of stress biomarkers in animals and their application in mitigating preslaughter stress in meat production.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据