MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Composition, spatial distribution, and diversity of the bacterial communities in the rumen of cows fed different forages

2010· article· en· W1865271396 on OpenAlexaff
Yunhong Kong, Ronald M. Teather, Robert J. Forster

Bibliographic record

VenueFEMS Microbiology Ecology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRumenBiologyTriticaleComposition (language)MetagenomicsBacteriaAnimal scienceBotanyFermentationFood scienceBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The species composition, distribution, and biodiversity of the bacterial communities in the rumen of cows fed alfalfa or triticale were investigated using 16S rRNA gene clone library analyses. The rumen bacterial community was fractionated and analyzed as three separate fractions: populations in the planktonic, loosely attached to rumen digesta particles, and tightly attached to rumen digesta particles. Six hundred and thirteen operational taxonomic units (OTUs) belonging to 32 genera, 19 families, and nine phyla of the domain Bacteria were identified from 1014 sequenced clones. Four hundred and fifty one of the 613 OTUs were identified as new species. These bacterial sequences were distributed differently among the three fractions in the rumen digesta of cows fed alfalfa or triticale. Chao 1 estimation revealed that, in both communities, the populations tightly attached to particulates were more diverse than the planktonic and those loosely attached to particulates. S-Libshuff detected significant differences in the composition between any two fractions in the rumen of cows with the same diet and between the communities fed alfalfa and triticale diets. The species richness estimated for the communities fed alfalfa and triticale is 1027 and 662, respectively. The diversity of the rumen bacterial community examined in this study is greater than previous studies have demonstrated and the differences in the community composition between two high-fiber diets have implications for sample selection for downstream metagenomics applications.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.184 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations219
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFEMS Microbiology EcologySame topicRuminant Nutrition and Digestive PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207