MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2550293733 · doi:10.2527/jam2016-0392

0392 Genetic architecture of feed efficiency in mid-lactation Holstein dairy cows

2016· article· en· W2550293733 on OpenAlexaffabout
L.C. Hardie, M.J. VandeHaar, Robert J. Tempelman, K.A. Weigel, L.E. Armentano, G.R. Wiggans, R.F. Veerkamp, Y. de Haas, M.P. Coffey, E. E. Connor, M.D. Hanigan, C.R. Staples, Z. Wang, D.M. Spurlock

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidual feed intakeAnimal scienceGenetic architectureHeritabilityBiologyLactationHerdRandom effects modelDairy cattleQuantitative trait locusBody weightFeed conversion ratioGeneticsMedicineInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to explore the genetic architecture and biological basis of feed efficiency in lactating Holstein cows. In total, 4918 cows with actual or imputed genotypes for 60,671 SNP had individual feed intake, milk yield, milk composition, and body weight records. Cows were from research herds located in the United States, Canada, the Netherlands, and Scotland. Feed efficiency defined as residual feed intake (RFI) was calculated as the residual of the regression of DMI on milk energy (MilkE), metabolic body weight (MBW), and body weight change along with systematic effects of parity class by days in milk fitted as a fifth order Legendre polynomial (fixed), diet within experiment within location (random) and test week (random). Adjusted phenotypes for DMI, MilkE, and MBW were calculated as the sum of the animal and residual components from the regression of each trait on the same systematic effects used for RFI. Animal relationships were represented with a genomic relationship matrix. Genome-wide association studies were performed for RFI, DMI, MilkE, and MBW using the Bayes B method in GenSel version 4.4 with 1% of SNP assumed to have a non-zero effect. One megabase windows with the greatest percent of the total genetic variation explained by the markers (TGVM) were identified, and within windows explaining more than 0.5% of the TGVM, the SNP with the highest posterior probability of a non-zero effect was tested for significant additive and dominance effects. Marker-based heritabilities were estimated for RFI (0.10), DMI (0.25), MilkE (0.20), and MBW (0.44). Tentative results for RFI identified regions explaining the greatest percent of the TGVM on chromosomes X, 9, and 14, and all tested SNP had significant additive effects (p < 0.05). Four of the 10 regions with the greatest effect on DMI also were included in the 10 regions with greatest effects on RFI, but not in the top 10 regions for MilkE or MBW, suggesting a genetic basis for intake that is unrelated to energy consumption required for milk production or maintenance. Candidate genes found within windows explaining the greatest percent of the TGVM for RFI include solute carrier family 25 member 14 and leptin. In conclusion, feed efficiency is a polygenic trait exhibiting genetic variation distinct from that underlying maintenance requirements and milk energy output.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207