4.5 Article

The study of some haematological and serum biochemical parameters of juvenile beluga (Huso huso) fed oligofructose

期刊

FISH PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 37, 期 1, 页码 91-96

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10695-010-9420-9

关键词

Prebiotic; Haematology; Biochemistry; Sturgeon; Serum enzymes; Metabolic products

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A study was conducted to investigate the effects of dietary oligofructose (1, 2 and 3%) on the blood profiles of beluga (Huso huso) juveniles (18.77 +/- A 0.76 g) compared to fish fed an un-supplemented diet. After 7 weeks of feeding on the experimental diets, haematological parameters, metabolic products (cholesterol, glucose and total protein) and serum enzymes (lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase) were measured. Compared to the control group (0% oligofructose), dietary oligofructose had no effect on red blood cell counts (RBC), mean corpuscular volume (MCV), mean cellular haemoglobin (MCH) or mean cell haemoglobin concentration (MCHC) (P > 0.05). However, haemoglobin (Hb) concentration, leucocyte (WBC) levels and the proportion of lymphocytes were significantly higher (P > 0.05) in the 2% oligofructose fed fish than in the 3% oligofructose fed fish. Additionally, haematocrit (Hct) values (P = 0.049) and the proportion of lymphocytes (P a parts per thousand currency sign 0.01) were significantly higher in the 2% oligofructose group than in the control group. Although serum glucose and total protein remained unaffected, serum cholesterol was significantly lower in the 2% oligofructose group than in the control and 3% oligofructose group (P < 0.05). The results of the present study showed that oligofructose had no significant effects on serum lactate dehydrogenase, alkaline phosphatase, alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase. These results indicate that fish blood profiles could be affected by prebiotics, which should be taken into account in future studies.

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

4.5
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