Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-xh428 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-25T08:57:50.249Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Urine metabolome alterations in malnutrition and the impact of glycerol or rumen-protected choline chloride supplementation in advanced pregnant ewes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 February 2020

Changzheng Guo
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Microbiology, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Nutrition and Animal Health, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China National Experimental Teaching Demonstration Center of Animal Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China National Center for International Research on Animal Gut Nutrition, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China
Yanfeng Xue
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Microbiology, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Nutrition and Animal Health, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China National Experimental Teaching Demonstration Center of Animal Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China National Center for International Research on Animal Gut Nutrition, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China
Yuyang Yin
Affiliation:
Huzhou Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Huzhou313000, People’s Republic of China
Haipeng Xuan
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Microbiology, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Nutrition and Animal Health, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China National Experimental Teaching Demonstration Center of Animal Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China National Center for International Research on Animal Gut Nutrition, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China
Fan Hu
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Microbiology, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Nutrition and Animal Health, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China National Experimental Teaching Demonstration Center of Animal Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China National Center for International Research on Animal Gut Nutrition, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China
Shengyong Mao*
Affiliation:
Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Microbiology, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Gastrointestinal Nutrition and Animal Health, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China National Experimental Teaching Demonstration Center of Animal Science, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China National Center for International Research on Animal Gut Nutrition, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China Joint International Research Laboratory of Animal Health and Food Safety, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing210095, People’s Republic of China College of Animal Science and Technology, Shihezi University, Shihezi832003, People’s Republic of China
*
*Corresponding author: Dr Shengyong Mao, email maoshengyong@njau.edu.cn
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The objective of this study was to explore the metabolic profiles of pregnancy malnutrition induced by feed restriction (FR) and the counteracting effects of glycerol and rumen-protected choline chloride supplementation. Two feeding trials were conducted. In the first experiment, twenty pregnant Hu sheep carrying multiple fetuses with a gestation period of 108 d were randomly divided into two groups. The ewes in the control (CON) group were offered 100 % of their nutritional requirements as recommended by the National Research Council (NRC), while the FR group was offered 30 % of feed intake of CON for 15 d. In the second experiment, eighteen pregnant Hu sheep were offered a feed intake comprising 30 % of the NRC-recommended nutritional requirements twice daily. The sheep were randomly divided into three groups: the FR group in the second experiment (FR2), with no supplementation, the glycerol (GLY) group, which received 40 ml of glycerol per d, and the rumen-protected choline chloride (RPC) group, which received 10 g of rumen-protected choline chloride per d for 9 d. In the first experiment, the urine metabolome of sixteen ewes showed significant difference between the CON group and FR group. Compared with the CON group, FR decreased the level of d-glucose, lactic acid, levoglucosan, α-ketoglutarate, phosphohydroxypyruvic acid, glucose 6-phosphate and the methyl donors, while increasing the level of pyruvate, fumaric acid and carnitines in urine. Both the GLY and RPC treatments counteracted some of these changes and modulated the urine metabolome in advanced pregnant ewes suffering from malnutrition.

Information

Type
Full Papers
Copyright
© The Authors 2020
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Principal component analysis (PCA) and (b) partial least squares-discriminate analysis (PLS-DA) scores plot of urine metabolites based on liquid chromatography/MS from control (CON) and feed restriction (FR) groups. CON, offered 100 % of their National Research Council recommended nutritional requirements; FR, restricted to 30 % of feed intake of CON. , CON; , FR.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. (a) Principal component analysis (PCA) scores plot of urine metabolites based on liquid chromatography (LC)/MS from the feed restriction group in the second experiment (FR2), glycerol (GLY) group and rumen-protected choline chloride (RPC) group. (b) Partial least squares-discriminate analysis (PLS-DA) scores plot of urine metabolites based on LC/MS from GLY and FR2 groups. (c) PLS-DA scores plot of urine metabolites based on LC/MS from RPC and FR2 groups. FR2, offered 30 % of the National Research Council (NRC)-recommended nutritional requirements; GLY, offered 30 % of the NRC-recommended nutritional requirements and received 40 ml of glycerol per d; RPC, offered 30 % of the NRC-recommended nutritional requirements and received 10 g of RPC per d. (a) , FR2; , GLY; , RPC; (b) , FR2; , GLY; (c) , FR2; , RPC.

Figure 2

Table 1. Identification of significantly different metabolites in urine between ewes from control (CON) and feed restriction (FR) groups

Figure 3

Table 2. Identification of significantly different metabolites in urine between ewes from the glycerol (GLY) group and feed restriction group in the second experiment (FR2)

Figure 4

Table 3. Identification of significantly different metabolites in urine between ewes from the rumen-protected choline chloride (RPC) group and feed restriction group in the second experiment (FR2)

Figure 5

Fig. 3. Metabolome view map of the differentially expressed metabolites identified in the ewes’ urine between the control (CON) and feed restriction (FR) groups. The CON group was offered 100 % of their National Research Council recommended nutritional requirements; the FR group was restricted to 30 % of feed intake of CON. The larger size indicates higher pathway enrichment, and the darker colour indicates higher pathway impact values.

Figure 6

Fig. 4. Metabolome view map of the differentially expressed metabolites identified in the ewes’ urine between the glycerol (GLY) group and feed restriction group in the second experiment (FR2). GLY, offered 30 % of the National Research Council (NRC)-recommended nutritional requirements and received 40 ml of glycerol per d; FR2, offered 30 % of the NRC-recommended nutritional requirements. The larger size indicates higher pathway enrichment, and the darker colour indicates higher pathway impact values. TCA, tricarboxylic acid.

Figure 7

Fig. 5. Metabolome view map of the differentially expressed metabolites identified in the ewes’ urine between the rumen-protected choline chloride (RPC) group and feed restriction group in the second experiment (FR2). RPC, offered 30 % of the National Research Council (NRC)-recommended nutritional requirements and received 10 g of RPC per d. FR2, offered 30 % of the NRC-recommended nutritional requirements. The larger size indicates higher pathway enrichment, and the darker colour indicates higher pathway impact values.

Figure 8

Table 4. Enriched pathways based on differentially expressed metabolites in different treatments

Figure 9

Fig. 6. Overview of energy metabolism alteration in response to feed restriction, glycerol and rumen-protected choline chloride (RPC). , Significant increased metabolites in former group compared with the latter group; , no difference; , decrease; CON, offered 100 % of their National Research Council (NRC) recommended nutritional requirements; FR, restricted to 30 % of feed intake of CON; FR2, offered 30 % of the NRC-recommended nutritional requirements; GLY, offered 30 % of the NRC-recommended nutritional requirements and received 40 ml of glycerol per d; RPC, offered 30 % of the NRC-recommended nutritional requirements and received 10 g of RPC per d.

Supplementary material: File

Guo et al. Supplementary Materials

Guo et al. Supplementary Materials 1

Download Guo et al. Supplementary Materials(File)
File 17.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Guo et al. Supplementary Materials

Guo et al. Supplementary Materials 2

Download Guo et al. Supplementary Materials(File)
File 16.7 KB
Supplementary material: Image

Guo et al. Supplementary Materials

Guo et al. Supplementary Materials 3

Download Guo et al. Supplementary Materials(Image)
Image 3 MB