MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388539196 · doi:10.1093/jas/skad281.628

PSXIV-9 Effects of Dietary Restriction and One-Carbon Metabolite Supplementation During Early Gestation on the Maternal Gut and Vaginal Microbiota in Cattle

2023· article· en· W4388539196 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah M. Luecke, Godson Aryee, Devin B. Holman, Kaycie N. Schmidt, Matthew S Crouse, Alison K Ward, Carl R Dahlen, Joel S Caton, Samat Amat

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGestationAnimal scienceBiologyMetaboliteMicrobiomePregnancyEndocrinologyPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Maternal diet quality and quantity have significant impacts on both maternal and fetal health and development. The composition and function of the maternal gut microbiome is also significantly influenced by diet. However, little is known about the impact of gestational nutrient restriction on the maternal microbiome during early gestation, which is a critical stage for many developmental processes. Here, we evaluated the effects of dietary restriction and one-carbon metabolite (OCM) supplementation on the ruminal and vaginal microbiota of beef heifers during early pregnancy. For this, 32 beef heifers (approximately 14-month-old) were used in a 2 × 2 factorial experiment with main factors including targeted gain (CON; 0.45 kg/d gain vs. RES; -0.23 kg/d gain), and OCM supplementation (OCM vs. noOCM) (n = 8/treatment). OCM heifers received ruminal-protected methionine (20 g/day) and choline (60 g/day) daily via a fine-ground corn carrier, with weekly intramuscular injections of folate (320 mg) and vitamin B12 (20 mg). The noOCM heifers received only corn carrier and saline injections. Heifers were individually fed and began treatment at breeding (d 0) and remained on treatment until d 63 of gestation. Ruminal fluid and vaginal swab samples were collected at d -2, d 35, and d 63 (at necropsy). Microbiota from samples were assessed using 16S rRNA gene (V3-V4) sequencing. Overall community structure of the ruminal microbiota was affected by gain (PERMANOVA: R2 = 0.04, P < 0.0001), OCM (R2 = 0.013, P = 0.03), time (R2 = 0.16, P < 0.0001) and by their interactions (R2 = 0.08, P = 0.004). The greatest difference in ruminal microbial community structure was between RES and CON heifers (R2 ≥ 0.16, P ≤ 0.003) on d 63. Overall microbial richness (total ASVs) was greater in RES (2,900 vs. 2,737; P = 0.005) but was unaffected by OCM (P = 0.25). Analysis via MaAsLin2 revealed that phyla Firmicutes (31% vs. 22%), Actinobacteriota (0.65% vs. 0.36%) and Chloroflexi were enriched (P < 0.05) in RES heifers. Twenty-five of the 34 differentially abundant genera in the rumen microbiota, including Christensellaceae R7 (5.0% vs 2.6%), Lachnobacterium (2.0% vs. 0.46%), and Butyrivibrio were more relatively abundant in RES; whereas 9 genera including Prevotella (16.5% vs. 31.1%), Ruminococcus (1.6% vs. 2.5%) and Saccharofermentans (0.4% vs. 0.5%) were reduced in RES (P < 0.05) on d 63. Overall vaginal microbiota structure was affected by gain (R2 = 0.02, P = 0.023) and time (R2 = 0.34, P < 0.0001) but not OCM (P >0.05). Community structure of RES was distinct from CON (R2 = 0.16, P = 0.032) on d 63, but microbial community richness and diversity were not influenced by OCM (P > 0.05). On d 63, RES heifers had increased Actinobacteriota (30.5% vs. 17.7%), but reduced Proteobacteriota (6.2% vs. 9.4%) and Fusobacteriota (0.02% vs. 0.94%; P < 0.05). In summary, restricted dietary intake during early gestation induced significant alterations in the ruminal microbiota and its impact also extended to the vaginal microbiota. The composition of these two microbial communities remained largely unaffected by OCM supplement.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207