Characterizing the effect of incrementally increasing dry bulb temperature on linear and nonlinear measures of heart rate variability in nonpregnant, mid-gestation, and late-gestation sows.
gestation
heart rate variability
heat stress
physiology
sow
Journal
Journal of animal science
ISSN: 1525-3163
Titre abrégé: J Anim Sci
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8003002
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jan 2022
01 Jan 2022
Historique:
received:
02
11
2021
accepted:
07
01
2022
pubmed:
13
1
2022
medline:
2
2
2022
entrez:
12
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Characterizing the sow physiological response to an increased heat load is essential for effective heat stress mitigation. The study objective was to characterize the effects of a 400-min heating episode on sow heart rate variability (HRV) at different reproductive stages. HRV is a commonly used noninvasive proxy measure of autonomic function. Twenty-seven sows were enrolled in the study according to their gestation stage at time of selection: 1) nonpregnant (NP; n = 7), 2) mid-gestation (MID; 57.3 ± 11.8 d gestation; n = 11), and 3) late-gestation (LATE; 98.8 ± 4.9 d gestation; n = 8). The HRV data utilized in the study were collected from each pig as the dry bulb temperature in the room increased incrementally from 19.84 ± 2.15 °C to 35.54 ± 0.43 °C (range: 17.1-37.5 °C) over a 400-min period. After data collection, one 5-min set of continuous heart rate data were identified per pig for each of nine temperature intervals (19-20.99, 21-22.99, 23-24.99, 25-26.99, 27-28.99, 29-30.99, 31-32.99, 33-34.99, and 35-36.99 °C). Mean inter-beat interval length (RR), standard deviation of r-r intervals (SDNN), root mean square of successive differences (RMSSD), high frequency spectral power (HF), sample entropy (SampEn), short-term detrended fluctuation analysis (DFAα1), and three measures (%REC, DET, LMEAN) derived from recurrence quantification analysis were calculated for each data set. All data were analyzed using the PROC GLIMMIX procedure in SAS 9.4. Overall, LATE sows exhibited lower RR than NP sows (P < 0.01). The standard deviation of r-r intervals and RMSSD differed between each group (P < 0.01), with LATE sows exhibiting the lowest SDNN and RMSSD and NP sows exhibiting the greatest SDNN and RMSSD. Late-gestation sows exhibited lower HF than both MID and NP sows (P < 0.0001), greater DFA values than NP sows (P = 0.05), and greater DET compared to MID sows (P = 0.001). Late-gestation also sows exhibited greater %REC and LMEAN compared to MID (P < 0.01) and NP sows (all P < 0.01). In conclusion, LATE sows exhibited indicators of greater autonomic stress throughout the heating period compared to MID and NP sows. However, temperature by treatment interactions were not detected as dry bulb increased. Future studies are needed to fully elucidate the effect of gestational stage and increasing dry bulb temperature on sow HRV. Pregnant pigs may be at a higher risk of poor physiological outcomes due to heat exposure compared to mature female pigs that are not pregnant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the stress response of pregnant pigs to increasing environmental temperatures using heart rate variability, a noninvasive measure commonly used to evaluate the physiological stress response. Our findings show that pregnant pigs, particularly those who are closer to giving birth, exhibit greater evidence of physiological stress compared to pigs who are not pregnant. However, we did not find evidence that increasing environmental temperature throughout the experimental period was a primary reason for the increased stress exhibited by pregnant pigs. It is possible that the physiological changes that normally occur during pregnancy may have masked the physiological stress response typically associated with increased heat exposure.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Pregnant pigs may be at a higher risk of poor physiological outcomes due to heat exposure compared to mature female pigs that are not pregnant. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the stress response of pregnant pigs to increasing environmental temperatures using heart rate variability, a noninvasive measure commonly used to evaluate the physiological stress response. Our findings show that pregnant pigs, particularly those who are closer to giving birth, exhibit greater evidence of physiological stress compared to pigs who are not pregnant. However, we did not find evidence that increasing environmental temperature throughout the experimental period was a primary reason for the increased stress exhibited by pregnant pigs. It is possible that the physiological changes that normally occur during pregnancy may have masked the physiological stress response typically associated with increased heat exposure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35020904
pii: 6502463
doi: 10.1093/jas/skac004
pmc: PMC8827002
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Subventions
Organisme : U.S. Department of Agriculture
Organisme : National Institute of Food and Agriculture
ID : 2018-67015-28130
Organisme : Agriculture and Food Research Initiative
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
Physiol Meas. 2011 Aug;32(8):1147-62
pubmed: 21709338
Mol Reprod Dev. 2017 Sep;84(9):946-956
pubmed: 28696547
J Physiol. 2019 Jul;597(14):3687-3696
pubmed: 31106429
J Anim Sci. 2013 Jun;91(6):2700-14
pubmed: 23508026
J Anim Sci. 2021 Aug 1;99(8):
pubmed: 34197578
Front Public Health. 2017 Sep 28;5:258
pubmed: 29034226
Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2009 Jan 28;367(1887):277-96
pubmed: 18977726
Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2002 Sep;283(3):R789-97
pubmed: 12185014
J Electrocardiol. 1995;28 Suppl:59-65
pubmed: 8656130
J Physiol. 2012 Aug 1;590(15):3535-43
pubmed: 22687610
Sci Rep. 2020 Nov 26;10(1):20677
pubmed: 33244103
J Therm Biol. 2018 May;74:325-330
pubmed: 29801645
Ann Biomed Eng. 2013 Feb;41(2):349-65
pubmed: 23064819
Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2015 Mar 5;370(1663):20140068
pubmed: 25602072
J Anim Sci. 2020 Dec 1;98(12):
pubmed: 33159520
Physiol Behav. 2004 Jan;80(4):449-58
pubmed: 14741229
Theriogenology. 2010 Jul 1;74(1):60-6
pubmed: 20189636
J Therm Biol. 2021 Feb;96:102828
pubmed: 33627268
Mol Reprod Dev. 2017 Sep;84(9):934-945
pubmed: 28667793
Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 2000 Jun;278(6):H2039-49
pubmed: 10843903
Open Cardiovasc Med J. 2009 Sep 10;3:110-23
pubmed: 19812706
Front Physiol. 2020 Feb 11;11:40
pubmed: 32116754
Physiol Behav. 2014 Apr 22;129:221-9
pubmed: 24631308
Physiol Behav. 2004 Oct 15;82(5):815-25
pubmed: 15451645
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002 Feb 19;99 Suppl 1:2466-72
pubmed: 11875196
Crit Care. 2004 Dec;8(6):R367-84
pubmed: 15566580
J Anim Sci. 1971 Feb;32(2):312-7
pubmed: 5543028
Physiol Behav. 2002 Feb 1-15;75(1-2):251-9
pubmed: 11890975
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012 Sep;7(9):1454-60
pubmed: 22723446
Front Vet Sci. 2018 Sep 21;5:223
pubmed: 30298134
Can Vet J. 1996 Apr;37(4):237-9
pubmed: 8801022
J Anim Sci. 2021 Jul 1;99(7):
pubmed: 34086897
Circulation. 2014 Sep 16;130(12):1003-8
pubmed: 25223771
Physiol Behav. 2011 May 3;103(2):188-96
pubmed: 21281655
Animal. 2020 Feb;14(2):379-387
pubmed: 31298203
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2011 Jan;39(1):12-7
pubmed: 21088607
J Therm Biol. 2019 Apr;81:33-40
pubmed: 30975421
Physiol Behav. 2004 Sep 30;82(4):601-9
pubmed: 15327907
J Anim Sci. 2019 Feb 1;97(2):962-971
pubmed: 30534960