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


CONCLUSIONS
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.
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.
Reeba M
RM
Jacob
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.
Austin T
AT
Mudd
Piglet Nutrition and Cognition Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA; Department of Animal Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, USA.
Lindsey S
LS
Alexander
Abbott Nutrition, Abbott Laboratories , Columbus, OH , USA.
Chron-Si
CS
Lai
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.
Ryan N
RN
Dilger
animal model; diffusion tensor imaging; magnetic resonance imaging; neurodevelopment; piglet; sow-reared; voxel-based morphometry
J Neurosci. 1996 Apr 15;16(8):2659-70
8786442
Neuroimage. 2004 Jul;22(3):1302-14
15219602
J Neurosci. 2005 Jun 22;25(25):5988-97
15976088
Pediatr Res. 2012 Feb;71(2):179-84
22258129
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2006 Sep 29;361(1473):1531-44
16939973
AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2016 Apr;37(4):713-9
26585259
Neuroimage. 2005 Oct 1;27(4):862-71
15978841
Cereb Cortex. 2012 Nov;22(11):2478-85
22109543
Prog Brain Res. 2013;207:35-64
24309250
NMR Biomed. 2002 Nov-Dec;15(7-8):435-55
12489094
J Nutr. 2014 Dec;144(12):1920-7
25342697
Neurochem Res. 2014 Jan;39(1):1-36
24258018
J Neurosci. 2006 Mar 1;26(9):2458-66
16510724
Pediatr Res. 2010 Apr;67(4):357-62
20035247
Front Pediatr. 2016 Feb 04;4:4
26870719
Neurotherapeutics. 2007 Jul;4(3):330-45
17599700
Front Hum Neurosci. 2013 Aug 06;7:445
23964224
PLoS One. 2014 Mar 17;9(3):e91951
24637829
Matern Child Health J. 2013 Nov;17(9):1680-8
23135624
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30(6):718-29
16887188
Nutr Neurosci. 2016 Dec;19(10):425-433
26046479
Dev Neurosci. 2012;34(4):291-8
22777003
Neuroimage. 2013 Nov 15;82:77-86
23721722
J Neurosci. 2008 Nov 19;28(47):12176-82
19020011
J Nutr. 2012 Nov;142(11):2050-6
23014488
J Neurosci. 2007 Feb 7;27(6):1255-60
17287499
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2012 Apr;1252:43-50
22524338
Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2014 Feb;2:419-44
25384150
Neuron. 2006 Sep 7;51(5):527-39
16950152
Brain. 2007 Sep;130(Pt 9):2375-86
17698497
Cereb Cortex. 2013 Dec;23(12):2944-55
22952278
Dev Neuropsychol. 2001;19(2):147-71
11530973
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 25;9(9):e107650
25254955
J Nutr. 2014 Dec;144(12):1903-9
25411030