MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361276122 · doi:10.3390/ani13071199

Transcriptome Profile in Dairy Cows Resistant or Sensitive to Milk Fat Depression

2023· article· en· W4361276122 on OpenAlexaff
Adriana Siurana, Ángela Cánovas, J. Casellas, S. Calsamiglia

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer-related molecular mechanisms research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyDairy cattleTranscriptomeFood scienceGeneAnimal scienceGeneticsGene expression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feeding linseed to dairy cows results in milk fat depression (MFD), but there is a wide range of sensitivity among cows. The objectives of this study were to identify target genes containing SNP that may play a key role in the regulation of milk fat synthesis in cows resistant or sensitive to MFD. Four cows were selected from a dairy farm after a switch from a control diet to a linseed-rich diet; two were resistant to MFD with a high milk fat content in the control (4.06%) and linseed-rich (3.90%) diets; and two were sensitive to MFD with the milk fat content decreasing after the change from the control (3.87%) to linseed-rich (2.52%) diets. Transcriptome and SNP discovery analyses were performed using RNA-sequencing technology. There was a large number of differentially expressed genes in the control (n = 1316) and linseed-rich (n = 1888) diets. Of these, 15 genes were detected as key gene regulators and harboring SNP in the linseed-rich diet. The selected genes MTOR, PDPK1, EREG, NOTCH1, ZNF217 and TGFB3 may form a network with a principal axis PI3K/Akt/MTOR/SREBP1 involved in milk fat synthesis and in the response to diets that induced MFD. These 15 genes are novel candidate genes to be involved in the resistance or sensitivity of dairy cows to milk fat depression.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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