4.4 Article

A vegetable oil feeding history affects digestibility and intestinal fatty acid uptake in juvenile rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2008.12.016

关键词

Fish oil substitution; Plant oils; Salmonid fish; In vitro fatty acid absorption; Transepithelial resistance; Intestinal integrity; Ussing chamber

资金

  1. EU project [Q5RS-2000-31656]
  2. Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning [22.3/2003-1241]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Future expansion of aquaculture relies on the use of alternatives to fish oil in fish feed. This study examined to what extent the nature of the feed oil affects intestinal lipid uptake properties in rainbow trout. The fish were fed a diet containing fish (FO), rapeseed (RO) or linseed (LO) oil for 8 weeks after which absorptive properties were assessed. Differences in digestibility due to feed oil history were measured using diet FO with an indigestible marker. Intestinal integrity, paracellular permeability, in vitro transepithelial fatty acid transport (H-3-18:3n-3 and C-14-16:0) and their incorporation into intestinal epithelia were compared using Ussing chambers. Feed oil history did not affect the triacylglycerol/phosphatidylcholine ratio (TAG/PC) of the newly synthesized lipids in the segments. The lower TAG/PC ratio with 16:0 (2:1) than with 18:3 (10:1) showed the preferential incorporation of 16:0 into polar lipids. The FO-feeding history decreased permeability and increased transepithelial resistance of the intestinal segments. Transepithelial passage rates of 18:3n-3 were higher when pre-fed LO compared to RO or FO. Similarly, pre-feeding LO increased apparent lipid and fatty acid digestibilities compared to RO or FO. These results demonstrate that the absorptive intestinal functions in fish can be altered by the feed oil history and that the effect remains after a return to a standard fish oil diet. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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