MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2593738743 · doi:10.2527/jas.2016.0630

Anabolic payout of terminal implant alters adipogenic gene expression of the longissimus muscle in beef steers1

2017· article· en· W2593738743 on OpenAlexaff
Zachary K Smith, Ki Yong Chung, S. L. Parr, B. J. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnabolismMarbled meatImplantFeedlotRandomized block designGene expressionAnimal scienceMessenger RNAEndocrinologyChemistryInternal medicineBiologyMedicineGeneBiochemistrySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This experiment evaluated the dose and payout pattern of trenbolone acetate (TBA) and estradiol-17β (E) on LM mRNA expression of adenosine monophosphate-activated protein kinase-ɑ (-ɑ), β, G protein-coupled receptor 41(), G protein-coupled receptor 43 (), γ, and stearoyl CoA desaturase () in finishing feedlot steers as indicators of adipogenesis and marbling development. British × Continental steers (n = 168; 14 pens/treatment; initial BW = 362 kg) were used in a randomized complete block design. Treatments included: no implant (NI), Revalor-S (REV-S; 120 mg TBA + 24 mg E), or Revalor-XS (REV-X; delayed release implant: 80 mg TBA + 16 mg E [uncoated], 120 mg TBA + 24 mg E [coated], 200 mg TBA + 40 mg E [total]). Steers were fed 1 time daily for an average of 164 d. The LM biopsies were collected (1 steer/pen) on d -1, 27, 55, and 111 relative to timing of implant. Total RNA was isolated from each sample and real-time quantitative PCR was used to measure quantity of -ɑ, β, , ,it, γ, and mRNA. No implant × day interactions were detected ( ≥ 0.19) in this experiment. Day impacted the mRNA expression of all adipogenic genes ( ≤ 0.02). The main effect of implant tended ( = 0.09) to influence expression of -ɑ, REV-X had an 8.8% increase over NI and an 18.7% increase over REV-S. Implant influenced ( = 0.03) mRNA expression of , expression of for the REV-X treatment was not different ( > 0.10) from NI, and both were greater ( ≤ 0.05) than REV-S (1.13, 1.00, and 0.67 ± 0.224 arbitrary units) for REV-X, NI, and REV-S, respectively. Implant also influenced ( = 0.02) expression of , expression of for REV-X was not different ( > 0.10) from NI, and both were greater ( ≤ 0.05) than REV-S (1.27, 1.07, and 0.72 ± 0.234 arbitrary units) for REV-X, NI, and REV-S, respectively. Implant influenced ( = 0.02) mRNA expression of γ in LM tissue, expression of γ for REV-X was not different ( > 0.10) from NI, and both were greater ( ≤ 0.05) than REV-S (1.09, 1.02, and 0.69 ± 0.195 arbitrary units) for REV-X, NI, and REV-S, respectively. The REV-X steers received the greatest anabolic dose of TBA + E without detriment to marbling scores. The increased mRNA expression of adipogenic genes for REV-X steers suggest that the delayed and gradual release of anabolic stimulants associated with REV-X might have mitigated decreases in marbling generally attributed to multiple combined TBA + E implants.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207