Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35775583›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2022

Exploring methods to summarize gut microbiota composition for microbiability estimation and phenotypic prediction in swine.

Yuqing He, Francesco Tiezzi, Jicai Jiang, Jeremy Howard, Yijian Huang, Kent Gray, Jung-Woo Choi, Christian Maltecca

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors.

Yuqing HeDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA.
Francesco TiezziDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA.
Jicai JiangDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA.
Jeremy HowardSmithfield Premium Genetics, Rose Hill, NC 28458, USA.
Yijian HuangSmithfield Premium Genetics, Rose Hill, NC 28458, USA.
Kent GraySmithfield Premium Genetics, Rose Hill, NC 28458, USA.
Jung-Woo ChoiCollege of Animal Life Sciences, Division of Animal Resource Science 1 Gangwondaehak-gil, Chuncheon-si, Gangwon-do, 24341, Republic of Korea.
Christian MalteccaDepartment of Animal Science, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27607, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9996-4680

Funding

North Carolina Pork Council 2017-1929
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The microbial composition resemblance among individuals in a group can be summarized in a square covariance matrix and fitted in linear models. We investigated eight approaches to create the matrix that quantified the resemblance between animals based on the gut microbiota composition. We aimed to compare the performance of different methods in estimating trait microbiability and predicting growth and body composition traits in three pig breeds. This study included 651 purebred boars from either breed: Duroc (n = 205), Landrace (n = 226), and Large White (n = 220). Growth and body composition traits, including body weight (BW), ultrasound backfat thickness (BF), ultrasound loin depth (LD), and ultrasound intramuscular fat (IMF) content, were measured on live animals at the market weight (156 ± 2.5 d of age). Rectal swabs were taken from each animal at 158 ± 4 d of age and subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Eight methods were used to create the microbial similarity matrices, including 4 kernel functions (Linear Kernel, LK; Polynomial Kernel, PK; Gaussian Kernel, GK; Arc-cosine Kernel with one hidden layer, AK1), 2 dissimilarity methods (Bray-Curtis, BC; Jaccard, JA), and 2 ordination methods (Metric Multidimensional Scaling, MDS; Detrended Correspondence analysis, DCA). Based on the matrix used, microbiability estimates ranged from 0.07 to 0.21 and 0.12 to 0.53 for Duroc, 0.03 to 0.21 and 0.05 to 0.44 for Landrace, and 0.02 to 0.24 and 0.05 to 0.52 for Large White pigs averaged over traits in the model with sire, pen, and microbiome, and model with the only microbiome, respectively. The GK, JA, BC, and AK1 obtained greater microbiability estimates than the remaining methods across traits and breeds. Predictions were made within each breed group using four-fold cross-validation based on the relatedness of sires in each breed group. The prediction accuracy ranged from 0.03 to 0.18 for BW, 0.08 to 0.31 for BF, 0.21 to 0.48 for LD, and 0.04 to 0.16 for IMF when averaged across breeds. The BC, MDS, LK, and JA achieved better accuracy than other methods in most predictions. Overall, the PK and DCA exhibited the worst performance compared to other microbiability estimation and prediction methods. The current study shows how alternative approaches summarized the resemblance of gut microbiota composition among animals and contributed this information to variance component estimation and phenotypic prediction in swine.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomeAnimalsBody CompositionMalePhenotypeRNA, Ribosomal, 16SSwineRNA, Ribosomal, 16SGut microbiotamicrobiabilitymicrobial similarity matrixpredictionswine

Identifiers

PMID35775583
PMCPMC9492266

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.