Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29470489›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Integration of machine learning and meta-analysis identifies the transcriptomic bio-signature of mastitis disease in cattle.

Somayeh Sharifi, Abbas Pakdel, Mansour Ebrahimi, James M Reecy, Samaneh Fazeli Farsani, Esmaeil Ebrahimie

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 115 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Mechanisms of host-bacterial interactions duringFrontiers in veterinary science · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Somayeh SharifiDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.
Abbas PakdelDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan, Iran.ORCID 0000-0002-9214-9894
Mansour EbrahimiSchool of Basic Sciences, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.
James M ReecyDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, United States of America.
Samaneh Fazeli FarsaniDepartment of Chemical Engineering, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.
Esmaeil EbrahimieSchool of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Isfahan University of Technology · IRFerdowsi University of Mashhad · IRIowa State University · USShiraz University · IRUniversity of Qom · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gram-negative bacteria such as Escherichia coli (E. coli) are assumed to be among the main agents that cause severe mastitis disease with clinical signs in dairy cattle. Rapid detection of this disease is so important in order to prevent transmission to other cows and helps to reduce inappropriate use of antibiotics. With the rapid progress in high-throughput technologies, and accumulation of various kinds of '-omics' data in public repositories, there is an opportunity to retrieve, integrate, and reanalyze these resources to improve the diagnosis and treatment of different diseases and to provide mechanistic insights into host resistance in an efficient way. Meta-analysis is a relatively inexpensive option with good potential to increase the statistical power and generalizability of single-study analysis. In the current meta-analysis research, six microarray-based studies that investigate the transcriptome profile of mammary gland tissue after induced mastitis by E. coli infection were used. This meta-analysis not only reinforced the findings in individual studies, but also several novel terms including responses to hypoxia, response to drug, anti-apoptosis and positive regulation of transcription from RNA polymerase II promoter enriched by up-regulated genes. Finally, in order to identify the small sets of genes that are sufficiently informative in E. coli mastitis, the differentially expressed gene introduced by meta-analysis were prioritized by using ten different attribute weighting algorithms. Twelve meta-genes were detected by the majority of attribute weighting algorithms (with weight above 0.7) as most informative genes including CXCL8 (IL8), NFKBIZ, HP, ZC3H12A, PDE4B, CASP4, CXCL2, CCL20, GRO1(CXCL1), CFB, S100A9, and S100A8. Interestingly, the results have been demonstrated that all of these genes are the key genes in the immune response, inflammation or mastitis. The Decision tree models efficiently discovered the best combination of the meta-genes as bio-signature and confirmed that some of the top-ranked genes -ZC3H12A, CXCL2, GRO, CFB- as biomarkers for E. coli mastitis (with the accuracy 83% in average). This research properly indicated that by combination of two novel data mining tools, meta-analysis and machine learning, increased power to detect most informative genes that can help to improve the diagnosis and treatment strategies for E. coli associated with mastitis in cattle.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsCattleDatabases, GeneticData MiningDecision TreesEscherichia coliEscherichia coli InfectionsFemaleGene Expression ProfilingMachine LearningMastitis, BovineMeta-Analysis as TopicOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisTranscriptome

Identifiers

PMID29470489
PMCPMC5823400
OpenAlexW2791821920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.