ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2025
Prediction accuracy for feed intake and body weight gain using host genomic and rumen metagenomic data in beef cattle.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
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
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.