ArticleMetabolites2022
Identification of Candidate Salivary, Urinary and Serum Metabolic Biomarkers for High Litter Size Potential in Sows (
Article in Metabolites, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sensitive detection of unopposed estrogen using estrogen receptor functionalized nanoprobes for cancer diagnosis.Discover nano · 2026Review
- Screening and functional verification of potential metabolites for high fertility in sows.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Divergence in the sow vaginal microbiota is associated with fertility.Reproduction (Cambridge, England) · 2025Article
- Effect of SNPs on Litter Size in Swine.Current issues in molecular biology · 2024Article
- Metabolomics reveals early pregnancy biomarkers in sows: a non-invasive diagnostic approach.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The selection of sows that are reproductively fit and produce large litters of piglets is imperative for success in the pork industry. Currently, low heritability of reproductive and litter-related traits and unfavourable genetic correlations are slowing the improvement of pig selection efficiency. The integration of biomarkers as a supplement or alternative to the use of genetic markers may permit the optimization and increase of selection protocol efficiency. Metabolite biomarkers are an advantageous class of biomarkers that can facilitate the identification of cellular processes implicated in reproductive condition. Metabolism and metabolic biomarkers have been previously implicated in studies of female mammalian fertility, however a systematic analysis across multiple biofluids in infertile and high reproductive potential phenotypes has not been explored. In the current study, the serum, urinary and salivary metabolomes of infertile (INF) sows and high reproductive potential (HRP) sows with a live litter size ≥ 13 piglets were examined using LC-MS/MS techniques, and a data pipeline was used to highlight possible metabolite reproductive biomarkers discriminating the reproductive groups. The metabolomes of HRP and INF sows were distinct, including significant alterations in amino acid, fatty acid, membrane lipid and steroid hormone metabolism. Carnitines and fatty acid related metabolites were most discriminatory in separating and classifying the HRP and INF sows based on their biofluid metabolome. It appears that urine is a superior biofluid than saliva and serum for potentially predicting the reproductive potential level of a given female pig based on the performance of the resultant biomarker models. This study lays the groundwork for improving gilt and sow selection protocols using metabolomics as a tool for the prediction of reproductive potential.
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.