↓ Skip to main content

Glutamine and glutamate: Nonessential or essential amino acids?

Overview of attention for article published in Animal Nutrition, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 373)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
9 news outlets
twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
75 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
197 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Glutamine and glutamate: Nonessential or essential amino acids?
Published in
Animal Nutrition, September 2015
DOI 10.1016/j.aninu.2015.08.008
Pubmed ID
Authors

Malcolm Watford

Abstract

Glutamine and glutamate are not considered essential amino acids but they play important roles in maintaining growth and health in both neonates and adults. Although glutamine and glutamate are highly abundant in most feedstuffs there is increasing evidence that they may be limiting during pregnancy, lactation and neonatal growth, particularly when relatively low protein diets are fed. Supplementation of diets with glutamine, glutamate or both at 0.5 to 1.0% to both suckling and recently weaned piglets improves intestinal and immune function and results in better growth. In addition such supplementation to the sow prevents some of the loss of lean body mass during lactation, and increases milk glutamine content. However, a number of important questions related to physiological condition, species under study and the form and amount of the supplements need to be addressed before the full benefits of glutamine and glutamate supplementation in domestic animal production can be realized.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 197 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 197 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 16%
Student > Master 27 14%
Student > Bachelor 23 12%
Researcher 19 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 5%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 63 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 20%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 30 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 6%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 8 4%
Immunology and Microbiology 7 4%
Other 32 16%
Unknown 69 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 79. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2024.
All research outputs
#535,895
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Animal Nutrition
#6
of 373 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,114
of 279,267 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Animal Nutrition
#1
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 373 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,267 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.