MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P5013 Evaluation of gene interactions affecting carcass yield and marbling in beef cattle

2016· article· en· W2595427578 on OpenAlexaff
J. L. Duncombe, S. M. Schmutz, K.M. Madder, Fiona Buchanan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarbled meatBiologyGenotypeAlleleBeef cattleAnimal scienceGeneGeneticsCrossbreedCandidate gene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genotype-specific management of beef cattle in feedlots has the potential to improve carcass uniformity. Gene variants affecting marbling include LEPc.73C > T, ADH1Cc.-64T > C, TG5, and GALR2c.-199T > G while those in CRHc.22C > G, POMCc.288C > T, MC4Rc.856C > G and IGF2c.-292C > T influence lean yield. The purpose of the current study was to assess combinations of marbling gene variants with those associated with lean yield. Gene variants were initially genotyped in 386 crossbred steers and evaluated for associations with carcass traits (hot carcass weight, average fat, grade fat and rib-eye area). The goal was to select a subset of variants to genotype in 2000 steers (1000 implanted and 1000 hormone free) with camera graded carcass data (vision grade USDA yield, vision grade marbling, rib-eye area and fat thickness). We selected seven gene variants to proceed with (TG was discontinued) as they either had an association or were involved in gene interactions affecting a trait. Associations between gene variants with traits were made simpler due to the fact that some genotypes could be pooled, as least squares means (LSM) were not significantly different, indicating a dominant effect of one allele. Interestingly the mode of action of a gene changed depending on the trait. For example, in the implanted steers GALR2 affected rib-eye area (P = 0.002) where it exhibited an additive effect (TT = 12.98 in2, TG = 13.07 and GG = 13.47) however there was a dominant effect of the T allele for marbling (P = 0.0001; TT/TG = 397.83 and GG = 378.27) and fat (P = 0.001; TT/TG = 8.38 mm and GG = 7.31). This same association with marbling (P < 0.0001; TG/TT 463.52 mm and GG = 430.90) and fat (P = 0.006; TT/TG = 10.23 mm and GG = 9.14) was also observed in the hormone free steers where again the T allele showed dominance. Gene interactions affecting a trait were only observed in the hormone free steers: LEPc.73C > T and IGF2c.-292C > T with fat (P = 0.05) and a trend with marbling (P = 0.07); MC4Rc.856C > G and POMCc.288C > T with marbling (P = 0.05); and GALR2c.-199T > G and POMCc.288C > T with rib-eye area (P = 0.03). The ability to pool genotypes not only simplified the interactions, it resulted in a larger number of animals with combined genotypes. The gene SNP networks generated using EPISNP support the mode of action between gene variants. For example, the gene interaction that was a 3 by 2 was also determined to be Additive-Dominance. The gene SNP networks were affected by implant status of the animals.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→