Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 340

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 143 of the 143 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Nutritional programming of gastrointestinal tract development. Is the pig a good model for man?

Open access
Guilloteau, Paul, Zabielski, Romuald, Hammon, Harald M., Metges, Cornelia C.·2010·Nutrition Research Reviews

Abstract

The consequences of early-life nutritional programming in man and other mammalian species have been studied chiefly at the metabolic level. Very few studies, if any, have been performed in the gastrointestinal tract (GIT) as the target organ, but extensive GIT studies are needed since the GIT plays a key role in nutrient supply and has an impact on functions of the entire organism. The possible deleterious effects of nutritional programming at the metabolic level were discovered following epidemiological studies in human subjects, and confirmed in animal models. Investigating the impact of programming on GIT structure and function would need appropriate animal models due to ethical restrictions in the use of human subjects. The aim of the present review is to discuss the use of pigs as an animal model as a compromise between ethically acceptable animal studies and the requirement of data which can be interpolated to the human situation. In nutritional programming studies, rodents are the most frequently used model for man, but GIT development and digestive function in rodents are considerably different from those in man. In that aspect, the pig GIT is much closer to the human than that of rodents. The swine species is closely comparable with man in many nutritional and digestive aspects, and thus provides ample opportunity to be used in investigations on the consequences of nutritional programming for the GIT. In particular, the ‘sow–piglets’ dyad could be a useful tool to simulate the ‘human mother–infant’ dyad in studies which examine short-, middle- and long-term effects and is suggested as the reference model.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0954422410000077

Cites

143 of 143 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 143 references

Cited by

See all 340

Metadata

Authors
Guilloteau, P., Zabielski, R., Hammon, H. M., & Metges, C. C.
Venue
Nutrition Research Reviews
Published
2010-05-26
Volume
23
Issue
1
Pages
4-22
ISSN
  • 0954-4224 (ISSN-L)
  • 1475-2700
OpenAlex
W2007214172
Cited by
340
References
143
FWCI
13.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Nutritional programming of gastrointestinal tract development. Is the pig a good model for man? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0954422410000077
The paper
Guilloteau, P., Zabielski, R., Hammon, H. M., & Metges, C. C. (2010). Nutritional programming of gastrointestinal tract development. Is the pig a good model for man? Nutrition Research Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954422410000077

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.