4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Effect of dietary fructans and dexamethasone administration on the insulin response of ponies predisposed to laminitis

出版社

AMER VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.2460/javma.231.9.1365

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective-To determine whether pasture, and specifically the addition of fructan carbohydrate to the diet, induces exaggerated changes in serum insulin concentration in laminitis-predisposed (LP) ponies, compared with ponies with no history of the condition, and also to determine insulin responses to the dexamethasone suppression test. Design-Prospective study. Animals-10 LP and 11 control adult nonobese mixed-breed ponies. Procedures-Insulin-modified IV glucose tolerance tests were performed (5 ponies/group). In diet studies, ponies were kept on pasture and then changed to a hay diet (10 ponies/ group). Second, ponies were maintained on a basal hay diet (4 weeks) before being fed a hay diet supplemented with inulin (3 g/kg/d [1.4 g/lb/d]). Serum insulin and plasma glucose concentrations were analyzed before and after dietary changes. Serum cortisol and insulin concentrations were also measured in a standard dexamethasone suppression test. Results-The LP ponies were insulin resistant (median insulin sensitivity of 0.27 X 104 L.min(-1).mU(-1) in LP ponies, compared with 0.64 X 10(4) L.min(-1).mU(-1) in control ponies). Median insulin concentration in LP ponies was significantly greater than that in control ponies at pasture, decreased in response to feeding hay, and was markedly increased (5.5-fold) following the feeding of inulin with hay. The LP ponies had a greater increase in serum insulin concentration at 19 hours after dexamethasone administration (median, 222.9 mU/ L), compared with control ponies (45.6 mU/L). Conclusions and Clinical Relevance-Nonobese ponies predisposed to develop laminitis had compensated insulin resistance, and this phenotype was revealed by feeding plant fructan carbohydrate or by dexamethasone administration.

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

4.4
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