Display options
Share it on

Front Pediatr. 2016 Sep 12;4:95. doi: 10.3389/fped.2016.00095. eCollection 2016.

Comparison of Brain Development in Sow-Reared and Artificially Reared Piglets.

Frontiers in pediatrics

Reeba M Jacob, Austin T Mudd, Lindsey S Alexander, Chron-Si Lai, Ryan N Dilger

Affiliations

  1. Piglet Nutrition and Cognition Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA; Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA; Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
  2. Piglet Nutrition and Cognition Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA; Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA; Neuroscience Program, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
  3. Piglet Nutrition and Cognition Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA; Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
  4. Abbott Nutrition, Abbott Laboratories , Columbus, OH , USA.
  5. Piglet Nutrition and Cognition Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA; Division of Nutritional Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA; Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA; Neuroscience Program, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.

PMID: 27672632 PMCID: PMC5018487 DOI: 10.3389/fped.2016.00095

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Provision of adequate nutrients is critical for proper growth and development of the neonate, yet the impact of breastfeeding versus formula feeding on neural maturation has to be fully determined. Using the piglet as a model for the human infant, our objective was to compare neurodevelopment of piglets that were either sow-reared (SR) or artificially reared (AR) in an artificial setting.

METHODS: Over a 25-day feeding study, piglets (1.5 ± 0.2 kg initial bodyweight) were either SR (n = 10) with ad libitum intake or AR (n = 29) receiving an infant formula modified to mimic the nutritional profile and intake pattern of sow's milk. At study conclusion, piglets were subjected to a standardized set of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) procedures to quantify structure and composition of the brain.

RESULTS: Diffusion tensor imaging, an MRI sequence that characterizes brain microstructure, revealed that SR piglets had greater (P < 0.05) average white matter (WM) (generated from a piglet specific brain atlas) fractional anisotropy (FA), and lower (P < 0.05) mean and radial and axial diffusivity values compared with AR piglets, suggesting differences in WM organization. Voxel-based morphometric analysis, a measure of white and gray matter (GM) volumes concentrations, revealed differences (P < 0.05) in bilateral development of GM clusters in the cortical brain regions of the AR piglets compared with SR piglets. Region of interest analysis revealed larger (P < 0.05) whole brain volumes in SR animals compared with AR, and certain subcortical regions to be larger (P < 0.05) as a percentage of whole brain volume in AR piglets compared with SR animals. Quantification of brain metabolites using magnetic resonance spectroscopy revealed SR piglets had higher (P < 0.05) concentrations of myo-inositol, glycerophosphocholine + phosphocholine, and creatine + phosphocreatine compared with AR piglets. However, glutamate + glutamine levels were higher (P < 0.05) in AR piglets when compared with SR animals.

CONCLUSION: Overall, increases in brain metabolite concentrations, coupled with greater FA values in WM tracts and volume differences in GM of specific brain regions, suggest differences in myelin development and cell proliferation in SR versus AR piglets.

Keywords: animal model; diffusion tensor imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; neurodevelopment; piglet; sow-reared; voxel-based morphometry

References

  1. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Apr;37(4):713-9 - PubMed
  2. Neuroimage. 2004 Jul;22(3):1302-14 - PubMed
  3. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 17;9(3):e91951 - PubMed
  4. J Neurosci. 2005 Jun 22;25(25):5988-97 - PubMed
  5. J Neurosci. 2008 Nov 19;28(47):12176-82 - PubMed
  6. Front Pediatr. 2016 Feb 04;4:4 - PubMed
  7. Pediatr Res. 2010 Apr;67(4):357-62 - PubMed
  8. Neuroimage. 2013 Nov 15;82:77-86 - PubMed
  9. Dev Neuropsychol. 2001;19(2):147-71 - PubMed
  10. Nutr Neurosci. 2016 Dec;19(10 ):425-433 - PubMed
  11. Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Aug 06;7:445 - PubMed
  12. J Neurosci. 1996 Apr 15;16(8):2659-70 - PubMed
  13. Neurochem Res. 2014 Jan;39(1):1-36 - PubMed
  14. Neurotherapeutics. 2007 Jul;4(3):330-45 - PubMed
  15. J Neurosci. 2006 Mar 1;26(9):2458-66 - PubMed
  16. Dev Neurosci. 2012;34(4):291-8 - PubMed
  17. Neuroimage. 2005 Oct 1;27(4):862-71 - PubMed
  18. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2006 Sep 29;361(1473):1531-44 - PubMed
  19. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012 Apr;1252:43-50 - PubMed
  20. Cereb Cortex. 2012 Nov;22(11):2478-85 - PubMed
  21. Brain. 2007 Sep;130(Pt 9):2375-86 - PubMed
  22. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2014 Feb;2:419-44 - PubMed
  23. Cereb Cortex. 2013 Dec;23(12):2944-55 - PubMed
  24. PLoS One. 2014 Sep 25;9(9):e107650 - PubMed
  25. J Neurosci. 2007 Feb 7;27(6):1255-60 - PubMed
  26. J Nutr. 2014 Dec;144(12):1920-7 - PubMed
  27. J Nutr. 2014 Dec;144(12):1903-9 - PubMed
  28. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30(6):718-29 - PubMed
  29. NMR Biomed. 2002 Nov-Dec;15(7-8):435-55 - PubMed
  30. Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):179-84 - PubMed
  31. J Nutr. 2012 Nov;142(11):2050-6 - PubMed
  32. Neuron. 2006 Sep 7;51(5):527-39 - PubMed
  33. Matern Child Health J. 2013 Nov;17(9):1680-8 - PubMed

Publication Types