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