Metabolite fingerprinting of urine suggests breed-specific dietary metabolism differences in domestic dogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selective breeding of dogs has culminated in a large number of modern breeds distinctive in terms of size, shape and behaviour. Inadvertently, a range of breed-specific genetic disorders have become fixed in some pure-bred populations. Several inherited conditions confer chronic metabolic defects that are influenced strongly by diet, but it is likely that many less obvious breed-specific differences in physiology exist. Using Labrador retrievers and miniature Schnauzers maintained in a simulated domestic setting on a controlled diet, an experimental design was validated in relation to husbandry, sampling and sample processing for metabolomics. Metabolite fingerprints were generated from 'spot' urine samples using flow injection electrospray MS (FIE-MS). With class based on breed, urine chemical fingerprints were modelled using Random Forest (a supervised data classification technique), and metabolite features (m/z) explanatory of breed-specific differences were putatively annotated using the ARMeC database (http://www.armec.org). GC-MS profiling to confirm FIE-MS predictions indicated major breed-specific differences centred on the metabolism of diet-related polyphenols. Metabolism of further diet components, including potentially prebiotic oligosaccharides, animal-derived fats and glycerol, appeared significantly different between the two breeds. Analysis of the urinary metabolome of young male dogs representative of a wider range of breeds from animals maintained under domestic conditions on unknown diets provided preliminary evidence that many breeds may indeed have distinctive metabolic differences, with significant differences particularly apparent in comparisons between large and smaller breeds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".