Exploring Biological Impacts of Prenatal Nutrition and Selection for Residual Feed Intake on Beef Cattle Using Omics Technologies: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 70% of the cost of beef production is impacted by dietary intake. Maximizing production efficiency of beef cattle requires not only genetic selection to maximize feed efficiency (i.e., residual feed intake (RFI)), but also adequate nutrition throughout all stages of growth and development to maximize efficiency of growth and reproductive capacity, even during gestation. RFI as a measure of feed efficiency in cattle has been recently accepted and used in the beef industry, but the effect of selection for RFI upon the dynamics of gestation has not been extensively studied, especially in the context of fluctuating energy supply to the dam and fetus. Nutrient restriction during gestation has been shown to negatively affect postnatal growth and development as well as fertility of beef cattle offspring. This, when combined with the genetic potential for RFI, may significantly affect energy partitioning in the offspring and subsequently important performance traits. In this review, we discuss: 1) the importance of RFI as a measure of feed efficiency and how it can affect other economic traits in beef cattle; 2) the influence of prenatal nutrition on physiological phenotypes in calves; 3) the benefits of investigating the interaction of genetic selection for RFI and prenatal nutrition; 4) how metabolomics, transcriptomics, and epigenomics have been employed to investigate the underlying biology associated with prenatal nutrition, RFI, or their interactions in beef cattle; and 5) how the integration of omics information is adding a level of deeper understanding of the genetic architecture of phenotypic traits in cattle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".