MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402533541 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.240

425 Altering methyl donors to beef heifers during the periconceptual period impacts fetal muscle transcript abundance

2024· article· en· W4402533541 on OpenAlexaff
Kathlyn M Hauxwell, Robert A. Cushman, J. S. Caton, Wellison Jarles Silva Da Diniz, Brittney N. Keel, Alison K Ward, Amanda K. Lindholm‐Perry, Alexandria P Snider, H. C. Freetly, Carl R Dahlen, Samat Amat, Bryan W Neville, Jennifer F. Thorson, William T. Oliver, Jeremy R. Miles, Matt S Crouse

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeriod (music)Abundance (ecology)FetusAnimal scienceBiologyAndrologyPregnancyMedicineFisheryGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract New findings in developmental programming show an increased importance of methyl donor availability; however, effects of changing methyl donor concentration on the fetal transcriptome have yet to be identified. Differential gene expression (DEG) was used to determine the impact of maternal supplementation of methionine (MET), an obligate methyl donor, and guanidinoacetic acid (GAA), a methyl donor consumer, during the periconceptual period on bovine fetal development. MARC II heifers [n = 80; initial body weight (BW) = 346 ± 8.28 kg] receiving the same mixed ration and targeting the same gain (0.68 kg/d) were assigned to one of four treatments totaling 100 g/d of supplement with a ground corn carrier: MET (10 g/d), GAA (40 g/d), MET+GAA (10 g/d Met + 40 g/d GAA), and only ground corn carrier for control (CON). Supplementation began 63 d before breeding and concluded 63 d after breeding. Heifers pregnant with male offspring (CON, n = 10; MET, n = 8; GAA, n = 7; MET+GAA, n = 10) were slaughtered on d 63 of gestation. Transcript abundance was measured using RNA-Seq from extracted total RNA of fetal hindlimb samples (n = 35). The DEG analysis identified 227 upregulated and 121 downregulated genes from MET vs CON, 483 upregulated and 40 downregulated genes from GAA vs CON, and 672 upregulated and 34 downregulated genes from MET+GAA vs CON treated heifers (P ≤ 0.05). We identified 315 upregulated and 114 downregulated genes from MET vs GAA, 202 upregulated and 204 downregulated genes from GAA vs MET+GAA, and 35 upregulated and 133 downregulated genes from MET vs MET+GAA treated heifers (P ≤ 0.05). Over-representation analysis of DEGs highlighted immune response pathways that were found amongst the GAA vs CON, MET vs GAA, and GAA vs MET+GAA comparisons. Genes associated with cell inflammatory and immune response, including CD14, Toll-like receptor (TLR) 6, CD86, and TLR8, were upregulated in the GAA treatment. The TLR genes regulate expression of several pro-inflammatory cytokines, whereas CD genes are responsible for cell inflammatory response. Both are important for regulation of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-binding protein, which plays a subsequent role in immune recognition when bound with LPS, resulting in genes from these families being recognized as markers for inflammatory response in beef cattle. Between MET vs CON and MET+GAA vs CON comparisons, 15 pathways including skeletal system development, alpha-amino acid catabolic process, and acylglycerol catabolic processes were shared. The FABP1 gene was upregulated in both aforementioned comparisons and has an integral role in transport and metabolism of fatty acids within cattle. Providing supplementation of methyl donors to the maternal environment results in over-representation of fetal muscle genes acting on immune response as well as fatty acid and amino acid metabolism. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.320
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 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicBirth, Development, and Health→French-language works237,207→