Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31024050›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

Predicting Growth and Carcass Traits in Swine Using Microbiome Data and Machine Learning Algorithms.

Christian Maltecca, Duc Lu, Constantino Schillebeeckx, Nathan P McNulty, Clint Schwab, Caleb Shull, Francesco Tiezzi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Microbial and Genomic Information Synergistically Contribute to Predicting Swine Performance Across Production Systems.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Big Data and AI-Powered Modeling: A Pathway to Sustainable Precision Animal Nutrition.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  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

7 authors.

Christian MalteccaNorth Carolina State University, Animal Science Department, Raleigh, 27695, USA. cmaltec@ncsu.edu.
Duc LuNorth Carolina State University, Animal Science Department, Raleigh, 27695, USA.
Constantino SchillebeeckxMatatu Inc., Saint Louis, 63108, USA.
Nathan P McNultyMatatu Inc., Saint Louis, 63108, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0289-4517
Clint SchwabThe Maschhoffs LLC, Carlyle, 62231, USA.
Caleb ShullThe Maschhoffs LLC, Carlyle, 62231, USA.
Francesco TiezziNorth Carolina State University, Animal Science Department, Raleigh, 27695, USA. f_tiezzi@ncsu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we evaluated the power of microbiome measures taken at three time points over the growth test period (weaning, 15 and 22 weeks) to foretell growth and carcass traits in 1039 individuals of a line of crossbred pigs. We measured prediction accuracy as the correlation between actual and predicted phenotypes in a five-fold cross-validation setting. Phenotypic traits measured included live weight measures and carcass composition obtained during the trial as well as at slaughter. We employed a null model excluding microbiome information as a baseline to assess the increase in prediction accuracy stemming from the inclusion of operational taxonomic units (OTU) as predictors. We further contrasted performance of models from the Bayesian alphabet (Bayesian Lasso) as well machine learning approaches (Random Forest and Gradient Boosting) and semi-parametric kernel models (Reproducing Kernel Hilbert space). In most cases, prediction accuracy increased significantly with the inclusion of microbiome data. Accuracy was more substantial with the inclusion of microbiome information taken at weeks 15 and 22, with values ranging from approximately 0.30 for loin traits to more than 0.50 for back fat. Conversely, microbiome composition at weaning resulted in most cases in marginal gains of prediction accuracy, suggesting that later measures might be more useful to include in predictive models. Model choice affected predictions marginally with no clear winner for any model/trait/time point. We, therefore, suggest average prediction across models as a robust strategy in fitting microbiome information. In conclusion, microbiome composition can effectively be used as a predictor of growth and composition traits, particularly for fatness traits. The inclusion of OTU predictors could potentially be used to promote fast growth of individuals while limiting fat accumulation. Early microbiome measures might not be good predictors of growth and OTU information might be best collected at later life stages. Future research should focus on the inclusion of both microbiome as well as host genome information in predictions, as well as the interaction between the two. Furthermore, the influence of the microbiome on feed efficiency as well as carcass and meat quality should be investigated.

Indexed as

Machine LearningMeatAlgorithmsAnimalsBayes TheoremBreedingFemaleMaleSwine

Identifiers

PMID31024050
PMCPMC6484031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.