Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42530881›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2026

Impact of reducing metagenomic sequencing depth on phenotypic prediction accuracy of feed intake and average daily gain in beef cattle.

Andrew Lakamp, Nirosh D Aluthge, Larry A Kuehn, Warren M Snelling, James E Wells, Kristin E Hales, Bryan W Neville, Samodha C Fernando, Matthew L Spangler

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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, United States.
Nirosh D AluthgeDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, United States.
Larry A KuehnUSDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7573-5365
Warren M SnellingUSDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-6282-9728
James E WellsUSDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933, United States.
Kristin E HalesUSDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933, United States.
Bryan W NevilleUSDA-ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE 68933, United States.
Samodha C FernandoDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, United States.
Matthew L SpanglerDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5184-501X

Funding

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

Abstract

Metagenomic information can aid in both genomic and phenotypic predictions of economically relevant traits. Financial restraints often result in a trade-off between the number of samples sequenced and the depth of sequencing. Therefore, it is critical to understand how changes in sequencing depth impact phenotypic prediction accuracy to make optimal use of resources. This study utilized host genomic and rumen metagenomic information of 717 beef cattle to make phenotypic predictions for average daily dry matter intake (ADDMI) and average daily gain (ADG). Metagenomic samples were sequenced at an average depth of 20 million reads (20M set) and were downsampled to 50% (10M set), 25% (5M set), and 10% of the reads (2M set). Rumen microbial open reading frames (ORF) were predicted from each set of reads and used to define a random metagenomic effect in a mixed model framework. Variance components were estimated for each model using all available data, that is, no masking of phenotypes. Cross-validation schemes were utilized to determine prediction accuracy. Models which incorporated host genomic and metagenomic information explained more variation and generally had greater prediction accuracies than models with either effect alone. Models using the 2M or 5M set resulted in smaller microbiability estimates and lower prediction accuracy for both ADDMI and ADG compared to models using the 10M or 20M sets, though these differences were often not large when measures of uncertainty were considered. For ADDMI, there were only slight differences in microbiability and prediction accuracy between different downsampled sets in most scenarios. For ADG, the 20M set had roughly equivalent microbiability estimates as the other sets but also had a notably greater prediction accuracy, dependent on cross-validation scheme. Spearman correlations of metagenomic effect solutions, termed the estimated metagenomic value (EMV), between all sets for all models were always >0.90. However, the correlations between the EMV for models with the 5M, 10M, and 20M sets were always higher than those with the EMV from the 2M set. The 10M and 20M EMV always had correlations >0.98. Thus, dependent on trait and reference population composition, metagenomic predictions from data sequenced at a depth of 2-10 million reads per sample may yield results approximately equivalent to those from data sequenced at 20 million reads per sample in terms of variance explained and phenotypic prediction accuracy.

Indexed as

EatingMetagenomicsWeight GainAnimalsCattleMalePhenotypeRumenbeef cattlegenetic predictionmetagenomic sequencephenotypic prediction

Identifiers

PMID42530881
PMCPMC13459944

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.