ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2020
Modeling host-microbiome interactions for the prediction of meat quality and carcass composition traits in swine.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rumen Metagenomic and Muscle Metabolomic Characterization of Meat Quality in Duolang Sheep at Different Ages.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Microbial and Genomic Information Synergistically Contribute to Predicting Swine Performance Across Production Systems.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026Article
- From predisposition to recovery: field evidence of interactions between the gut microbiota and Brachyspira hyodysenteriae infection.Veterinary research · 2026Article
- Impact of reducing metagenomic sequencing depth on phenotypic prediction accuracy of feed intake and average daily gain in beef cattle.Journal of animal science · 2026Article
- Gut microbiota and metabolites in lipid metabolism and intramuscular fat deposition: mechanisms and implications for meat quality.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Unraveling the role of bacteria with heritable versus non-heritable relative abundance in the gut on boar semen quality.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Prediction accuracy for feed intake and body weight gain using host genomic and rumen metagenomic data in beef cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Host genetics predominates over gut microbiota in serum copper levels in boars.Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- Fecal microbiota-based investigations of nitrogen utilization efficiency and related traits in a Landrace × Piétrain crossbred population.Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- Parameter Estimation of Host Genomic and Gut Microbiota Contribution to Growth and Feed Efficiency Traits in Meat Rabbits.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- On the holobiont 'predictome' of immunocompetence in pigs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Exploring methods to summarize gut microbiota composition for microbiability estimation and phenotypic prediction in swine.Journal of animal science · 2022Article
- Gut microbiota and host genetics contribute to the phenotypic variation of digestive and feed efficiency traits in growing pigs fed a conventional and a high fiber diet.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022Article
- Gut microbial profiles and the role in lipid metabolism in Shaziling pigs.Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2022Article
- Microbiability and microbiome-wide association analyses of feed efficiency and performance traits in pigs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022Article
- Differences in meat quality between Angus cattle and Xinjiang brown cattle in association with gut microbiota and its lipid metabolism.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Article
- Microbial composition differs between production systems and is associated with growth performance and carcass quality in pigs.Animal microbiome · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objectives of this study were to evaluate genomic and microbial predictions of phenotypes for meat quality and carcass traits in swine, and to evaluate the contribution of host-microbiome interactions to the prediction. Data were collected from Duroc-sired three-way crossbred individuals (n = 1123) that were genotyped with a 60 k SNP chip. Phenotypic information and fecal 16S rRNA microbial sequences at three stages of growth (Wean, Mid-test, and Off-test) were available for all these individuals. We used fourfold cross-validation with animals grouped based on sire relatedness. Five models with three sets of predictors (full, informatively reduced, and randomly reduced) were evaluated. 'Full' included information from all genetic markers and all operational taxonomic units (OTU), while 'informatively reduced' and 'randomly reduced' represented a reduced number of markers and OTU based on significance preselection and random sampling, respectively. The baseline model included the fixed effects of dam line, sex and contemporary group and the random effect of pen. The other four models were constructed by including only genomic information, only microbiome information, both genomic and microbiome information, and microbiome and genomic information and their interaction.
resultsInclusion of microbiome information increased predictive ability of phenotype for most traits, in particular when microbiome information collected at a later growth stage was used. Inclusion of microbiome information resulted in higher accuracies and lower mean squared errors for fat-related traits (fat depth, belly weight, intramuscular fat and subjective marbling), objective color measures (Minolta a*, Minolta b* and Minolta L*) and carcass daily gain. Informative selection of markers increased predictive ability but decreasing the number of informatively reduced OTU did not improve model performance. The proportion of variation explained by the host-genome-by-microbiome interaction was highest for fat depth (~ 20% at Mid-test and Off-test) and shearing force (~ 20% consistently at Wean, Mid-test and Off-test), although the inclusion of the interaction term did not increase the accuracy of predictions significantly.
conclusionsThis study provides novel insight on the use of microbiome information for the phenotypic prediction of meat quality and carcass traits in swine. Inclusion of microbiome information in the model improved predictive ability of phenotypes for fat deposition and color traits whereas including a genome-by-microbiome term did not improve prediction accuracy significantly.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.