MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Identification of Marbling Gene Loci in Commercial Pigs in Canadian Herds

2018· preprint· en· W3122787811 on OpenAlexaffabout
William Jon Meadus, Pascale Duff, Jordan C. Roberts, Jennifer L. Zantinge, I. L. Larsen, J.L. Aalhus, M. Juárez

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2018
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarbled meatLoinBiologyIntramuscular fatBreedHerdGeneticsSNPPopulationLongissimus dorsiGeneAnimal scienceSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypeMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the amount of marbling and tested the genome of boars from 5 breeds of Duroc, Iberian, Lacombe, Berkshire and Pietrian that were commercially available for a swine herd in Canada. The marbling was ranked according to the amount of intramuscular fat % obtained in loin chops consisting of the longissimus dorsi muscle. The genetics were analysed by genome wide association study using 80,000 single nuclear polymorphism (SNP) microarrays. Our samples had pork that achieved > 7 % IMF from 110kg animals. Meta-analysis revealed SNP markers that were associated with the highest marbled pork chops on chromosomes 5, 7, and 16. Using the susScr 11.1 map, we determined that the nearest genes were SSNP, Rh glycoprotein and EGFLAM. We tested a sub-population of Duroc sired animals and found a different set of markers close to GRLB and KCNJ3 on chromosomes 8 and 15. Based on our sample, we can achieve pork with good marbling from animals conventionally raised to standard market weights of 110kg. The choice of a good marbling line of pig is not necessarily breed specific.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.orgSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207