Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37653442›Full record

ArticleMicrobiome2023

Combined effect of microbially derived cecal SCFA and host genetics on feed efficiency in broiler chickens.

Zhengxiao He, Ranran Liu, Mengjie Wang, Qiao Wang, Jumei Zheng, Jiqiang Ding, Jie Wen, Alan G Fahey, Guiping Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract readVideo-Audio Media
In one paragraph

Article in Microbiome, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
11.4field-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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 51 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. DietaryAnimal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Zhengxiao He *State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition; Key Laboratory of Animal (Poultry) Genetics Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100193, China.
Ranran Liu *State Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition; Key Laboratory of Animal (Poultry) Genetics Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100193, China.
Mengjie WangState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition; Key Laboratory of Animal (Poultry) Genetics Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100193, China.
Qiao WangState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition; Key Laboratory of Animal (Poultry) Genetics Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100193, China.
Jumei ZhengState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition; Key Laboratory of Animal (Poultry) Genetics Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100193, China.
Jiqiang DingState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition; Key Laboratory of Animal (Poultry) Genetics Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100193, China.
Jie WenState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition; Key Laboratory of Animal (Poultry) Genetics Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100193, China.
Alan G FaheySchool of Agriculture and Food Science, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland. alan.fahey@ucd.ie.
Guiping ZhaoState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition; Key Laboratory of Animal (Poultry) Genetics Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture, Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing, 100193, China. zhaoguiping@caas.cn.
Institute of Animal Sciences · CNChinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences · CNUniversity College Dublin · IEState Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving feed efficiency is the most important goal for modern animal production. The regulatory mechanisms of controlling feed efficiency traits are extremely complex and include the functions related to host genetics and gut microbiota. Short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), as significant metabolites of microbiota, could be used to refine the combined effect of host genetics and gut microbiota. However, the association of SCFAs with the gut microbiota and host genetics for regulating feed efficiency is far from understood.

resultsIn this study, 464 broilers were housed for RFI measuring and examining the host genome sequence. And 300 broilers were examined for cecal microbial data and SCFA concentration. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) showed that four out of seven SCFAs had significant associations with genome variants. One locus (chr4: 29414391-29417189), located near or inside the genes MAML3, SETD7, and MGST2, was significantly associated with propionate and had a modest effect on feed efficiency traits and the microbiota. The genetic effect of the top SNP explained 8.43% variance of propionate. Individuals with genotype AA had significantly different propionate concentrations (0.074 vs. 0.131 μg/mg), feed efficiency (FCR: 1.658 vs. 1.685), and relative abundance of 14 taxa compared to those with the GG genotype. Christensenellaceae and Christensenellaceae_R-7_group were associated with feed efficiency, propionate concentration, the top SNP genotypes, and lipid metabolism. Individuals with a higher cecal abundance of these taxa showed better feed efficiency and lower concentrations of caecal SCFAs.

conclusionOur study provides strong evidence of the pathway that host genome variants affect the cecal SCFA by influencing caecal microbiota and then regulating feed efficiency. The cecal taxa Christensenellaceae and Christensenellaceae_R-7_group were identified as representative taxa contributing to the combined effect of host genetics and SCFAs on chicken feed efficiency. These findings provided strong evidence of the combined effect of host genetics and gut microbial SCFAs in regulating feed efficiency traits. Video Abstract.

Indexed as

Gastrointestinal MicrobiomePropionatesAnimalsChickensEubacterialesGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypePropionatesBroilerCecal microbiotaFeed efficiencyGenetic variationsSCFAs

Identifiers

PMID37653442
PMCPMC10472625
OpenAlexW4386347809

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.