The gut microbiome and resistome of conventionally vs. pasture-raised pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conventional swine production typically houses pigs indoors and in large groups, whereas pasture-raised pigs are reared outdoors at lower stocking densities. Antimicrobial use also differs, with conventionally raised pigs often being exposed to antimicrobials directly or indirectly to control and prevent infectious disease. However, antimicrobial use can be associated with the development and persistence of antimicrobial resistance. In this study, we used shotgun metagenomic sequencing to compare the gut microbiomes and resistomes of pigs raised indoors on a conventional farm with those raised outdoors on pasture. The microbial compositions as well as the resistomes of both groups of pigs were significantly different from each other. Bacterial species such as Intestinibaculum porci , Pseudoscardovia radai and Sharpea azabuensis were relatively more abundant in the gut microbiomes of pasture-raised pigs and Hallella faecis and Limosilactobacillus reuteri in the conventionally raised swine. The abundance of antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs) was significantly higher in the conventionally raised pigs for nearly all antimicrobial classes, including aminoglycosides, beta-lactams, macrolides-lincosamides-streptogramin B, and tetracyclines. Functionally, the gut microbiomes of the two group of pigs also differed significantly based on their carbohydrate-active enzyme (CAZyme) profiles, with certain CAZyme families associated with host mucin degradation enriched in the conventional pig microbiomes. We also recovered 1043 dereplicated strain-level metagenome-assembled genomes (≥90 % completeness and <5 % contamination) to provide taxonomic context for specific ARGs and metabolic functions. Overall, the study provides insights into the differences between the gut microbiomes and resistomes of pigs raised under two very different production systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".