MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135416320 · doi:10.3390/ani11030715

A Systematic Review of Genomic Regions and Candidate Genes Underlying Behavioral Traits in Farmed Mammals and Their Link with Human Disorders

2021· review· en· W3135416320 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda B. Alvarenga, Hinayah Rojas de Oliveira, Shiyi Chen, Stephen P. Miller, J.N. Marchant, Laís Grigoletto, Luiz F. Brito

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCandidate geneGeneGeneticsExon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objectives of this study were to perform a systematic review of genomic regions associated with various behavioral traits in the main farmed mammals and identify key candidate genes and potential causal mutations by contrasting the frequency of polymorphisms in cattle breeds with divergent behavioral traits (based on a subjective clustering approach). A total of 687 (cattle), 1391 (pigs), and 148 (sheep) genomic regions associated with 37 (cattle), 55 (pigs), and 22 (sheep) behavioral traits were identified in the literature. In total, 383, 317, and 15 genes overlap with genomic regions identified for cattle, pigs, and sheep, respectively. Six common genes (e.g., NR3C2, PITPNM3, RERG, SPNS3, U6, and ZFAT) were found for cattle and pigs. A combined gene-set of 634 human genes was produced through identified homologous genes. A total of 313 out of 634 genes have previously been associated with behavioral, mental, and neurologic disorders (e.g., anxiety and schizophrenia) in humans. Additionally, a total of 491 candidate genes had at least one statistically significant polymorphism (p-value < 0.05). Out of those, 110 genes were defined as having polymorphic regions differing in greater than 50% of exon regions. Therefore, conserved genomic regions controlling behavior were found across farmed mammal species and humans.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations31
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207