Accessing Dietary Effects on the Rumen Microbiome: Different Sequencing Methods Tell Different Stories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study employed both amplicon and shotgun sequencing to examine and compare the rumen microbiome in Angus bulls fed with either a backgrounding diet (BCK) or finishing diet (HG), to assess if both methods produce comparable results. Rumen digesta samples from 16 bulls were subjected for microbial profiling. Distinctive microbial profiles were revealed by the two methods, indicating that choice of sequencing approach may be a critical facet in studies of the rumen microbiome. Shotgun-sequencing identified the presence of 303 bacterial genera and 171 archaeal species, several of which exhibited differential abundance. Amplicon-sequencing identified 48 bacterial genera, 4 archaeal species, and 9 protozoal species. Among them, 20 bacterial genera and 5 protozoal species were differentially abundant between the two diets. Overall, amplicon-sequencing showed a more drastic diet-derived effect on the ruminal microbial profile compared to shotgun-sequencing. While both methods detected dietary differences at various taxonomic levels, few consistent patterns were evident. Opposite results were seen for the phyla Firmicutes and Bacteroidetes, and the genus Selenomonas. This study showcases the importance of sequencing platform choice and suggests a need for integrative methods that allow robust comparisons of microbial data drawn from various omic approaches, allowing for comprehensive comparisons across studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".