MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232736231 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-38388/v4

Breeding farm, level of feeding and presence of antibiotics in the feed influence rabbit cecal microbiota

2020· preprint· en· W4232736231 on OpenAlexaff
María Velasco-Galilea, Míriam Guivernau, Miriam Piles, Marc Viñas, O. Rafel, Armand Sánchez, Yuliaxis Ramayo‐Caldas, Olga González-Rodríguez, Juan Pablo Sánchez

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsCanarie
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeEuropean CommissionInstituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria
KeywordsBiologyUnivariateOperational taxonomic unitTaxon16S ribosomal RNAGut floraSpecies richnessBiotechnologyTaxonomic rankMultivariate statisticsZoologyAntibioticsEcologyVeterinary medicineBacteriaMicrobiologyStatisticsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: the effect of the production environment and different management practices in rabbit cecal microbiota remains poorly understood. While previous studies have proved the impact of the age or the feed composition, research in the breeding farm and other animal management aspects, such as the presence of antibiotics in the feed or the level of feeding, is still needed. Characterization of microbial diversity and composition of growing rabbits raised under different conditions could help better understand the role these practices play in cecal microbial communities and how it may result in different animal performance.Results: four hundred twenty-five meat rabbits raised in two different facilities, fed under two feeding regimes (ad libitum or restricted) with feed supplemented or free of antibiotics, were selected for this study. A 16S rRNA gene-based assessment through the MiSeq Illumina sequencing platform was performed on cecal samples collected from these individuals at slaughter. Different univariate and multivariate approaches were conducted to unravel the influence of the different factors on microbial alpha diversity and composition at phylum, genus and OTU taxonomic levels. The animals raised in the facility harboring the most stable environmental conditions had greater, and less variable, microbial richness and diversity. Bootstrap univariate analyses of variance and sparse partial least squares-discriminant analyses endorsed that farm conditions exerted an important influence on rabbit microbiota since the relative abundances of many taxa were found differentially represented between both facilities at all taxonomic levels characterized. Furthermore, only five OTUs were needed to achieve a perfect classification of samples according to the facility where animals were raised. The level of feeding and the presence of antibiotics did not modify the global alpha diversity but had an impact on some bacteria relative abundances, albeit in a small number of taxa compared with farm, which is consistent with the lower sample classification power according to these factors achieved using microbial information.Conclusions: this study reveals that factors associated with the farm effect and other management factors, such as the presence of antibiotics in the diet or the feeding level, modify cecal microbial communities. It highlights the importance of offering a controlled breeding environment that reduces differences in microbial cecal composition that could be responsible for different animal performance.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.177
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207