MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210337992 · doi:10.3390/genes13020297

Emerging Roles of Non-Coding RNAs in the Feed Efficiency of Livestock Species

2022· review· en· W4210337992 on OpenAlexafffund
Guoyu Hu, Duy Ngoc, Pourya Davoudi, Younes Miar

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsDepartment of Agriculture, Nova Scotia
KeywordsLivestockBiologyCoding (social sciences)Computational biologyLong non-coding RNAGeneticsRNAGeneEcologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A global population of already more than seven billion people has led to an increased demand for food and water, and especially the demand for meat. Moreover, the cost of feed used in animal production has also increased dramatically, which requires animal breeders to find alternatives to reduce feed consumption. Understanding the biology underlying feed efficiency (FE) allows for a better selection of feed-efficient animals. Non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs), especially micro RNAs (miRNAs) and long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), play important roles in the regulation of bio-logical processes and disease development. The functions of ncRNAs in the biology of FE have emerged as they participate in the regulation of many genes and pathways related to the major FE indicators, such as residual feed intake and feed conversion ratio. This review provides the state of the art studies related to the ncRNAs associated with FE in livestock species. The contribution of ncRNAs to FE in the liver, muscle, and adipose tissues were summarized. The research gap of the function of ncRNAs in key processes for improved FE, such as the nutrition, heat stress, and gut-brain axis, was examined. Finally, the potential uses of ncRNAs for the improvement of FE were discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.744

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.293 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenesSame topicCancer-related molecular mechanisms researchFrench-language works237,207