Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41168702›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2025

Prediction accuracy for feed intake and body weight gain using host genomic and rumen metagenomic data in beef cattle.

Andrew Lakamp, Seidu Adams, Larry Kuehn, Warren Snelling, James Wells, Kristin Hales, Bryan Neville, Samodha Fernando, Matthew L Spangler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Andrew LakampDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA.
Seidu AdamsDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA.
Larry KuehnUSDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, 68933, USA.
Warren SnellingUSDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, 68933, USA.
James WellsUSDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, 68933, USA.
Kristin HalesUSDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, 68933, USA.
Bryan NevilleUSDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, 68933, USA.
Samodha FernandoDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA.
Matthew L SpanglerDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, 68583, USA. mspangler2@unl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5184-501X

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2018-67015-27496National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2022-33522-38219National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2023-68015-40015National Institute of Food and Agriculture 2024-33522-43699
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHost genomic and rumen metagenome data can predict feed efficiency traits, supporting management decisions and increasing profitability. This study estimated the proportion of variation of average daily dry matter intake and average daily gain explained by the rumen metagenome in beef cattle, evaluated prediction accuracy using genomic data, metagenomic data, or their combination, and explored methods for modelling the rumen metagenome to improve phenotypic prediction accuracy. Data from 717 animals on four diets (two concentrate-based and two forage-based) were analyzed. Animal genotypes consisted of 749,922 imputed sequence variants, while metagenomic data comprised 16,583 open reading frames from ruminal microbiota. The metagenome was modelled using six (co)variance matrices, based on combinations of two creation methods and three modifications. Nineteen mixed linear models were used per trait: one with genomic effects only, six with metagenomic effects, six combining genomic and metagenomic effects, and six adding interaction effects. Two cross-validation schemes were applied to evaluate prediction accuracy: fourfold cross-validation balanced for diet type with 5 replicates and leave-one-diet-out cross-validation, where three diets served as training and the fourth as testing. Prediction accuracy was measured as the correlation between an animal's summed random effects and its adjusted phenotype.

resultsAlthough minimal, differences existed in parameter estimates and validation accuracy depending on how the metagenome effect was modelled. Median phenotype prediction accuracy ranged from -0.01 to 0.28. No specific set of model characteristics consistently lead to the highest accuracies. Models which combined genome and metagenome data outperformed those using either data source alone. Models where the rumen metagenome (co)variances matrix was scaled within each diet composition generally led to lower prediction accuracies in this study.

conclusionsThe rumen metagenome can explain a significant proportion of variation in beef cattle feed efficiency traits. Those traits can also be predicted using either host genome or rumen metagenome, though using both sources of information proved more accurate. Multiple methods of forming the metagenome (co)variance matrix can lead to similar prediction accuracies.

Indexed as

EatingMetagenomeRumenWeight GainAnimal FeedAnimalsCattleDietGastrointestinal MicrobiomeGenomicsMetagenomicsPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID41168702
PMCPMC12577351

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.