MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402533647 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.714

PSLBI-1 Stepwise approach applied to metabolites related to residual feed intake in Angus cattle

2024· article· en· W4402533647 on OpenAlexaff
Alanne ório Ten Nunes, Francisco Novais, Camila A. Faleiros, Gabriela Marques Marcilli, Mirele Poleti, José Bento Sterman Ferraz, Heidge Fukumasu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResidual feed intakeAnimal scienceResidualBiologyBody weightMathematicsFeed conversion ratioEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Feed efficiency (FE) selection is crucial for improving the economic and environmental sustainability of beef cattle production. Residual feed intake (RFI) is the most commonly used parameter for FE because it is independent of metabolic body weight (MBW) and average daily gain (ADG). Low-RFI (LRFI) animals are more efficient, as they present less feed intake than expected, decreasing dry matter intake (DMI) and methane production per unit of body weight gain (BW). However, considering the time and resources required for RFI measurement, omics methods have been applied to distinguish between LRFI and high-RFI (HRFI) animals. This study performed a stepwise approach as an alternative for selecting important plasma metabolites related to RFI in beef cattle. Black Angus bulls (n = 64) with an initial BW of 321.8 ± 59.98 kg and 12.9 ± 1.08 mo from rearing under continuous grazing were allocated to feedlot pens and fed a diet containing 80:20 roughage:concentrate. The animals were evaluated for DMI and BW using an integrated real-time data collection system (Intergado, Brazil) for 56 d, and ADG was estimated as the slope of the linear regression between BW and days on feed. Blood samples were collected at the end of the finishing phase by puncturing the coccygeal vessels. Through targeted metabolomics, concentrations of plasma amino acids, biogenic amines, and hexoses were determined using an AB Sciex 5500 QTRAP mass spectrometer in liquid chromatography-mass-spectrometry and flow-injection analysis mode. The fixed effect of MBW, ADG, age and batch, and the random effect of sire were considered in the mixed model to determine RFI and to categorize the 20 greatest and 20 least values as HRFI and LRFI, respectively, using the lmer4 R package. A stepwise approach in both directions was used in the MASS R package. The model with the lowest AIC (31.15) presented 23 of the 31 metabolites, followed by ANOVA (Table 1). Serotonin, glutamate, phenylalanine, and tyrosine concentrations were greater in HRFI, whereas aspartate, citrulline, tryptophan, ornithine, taurine, creatinine, and trans-4-hydroxyproline concentrations were greater in LRFI (P < 0.05). The gluconeogenic potential of glutamate, phenylalanine, and tyrosine suggests that an impact on energy availability may affect DMI. Conversely, differences in creatinine and trans-4-hydroxyproline abundance can reflect changes in muscular body mass, while the greater concentrations of aspartate, citrulline, and ornithine in LRFI animals suggest that a lower DMI can be associated with lower urea cycle activity. The stepwise approach appears to be a feasible alternative as a pre-selection method to identify plasma metabolites that could be used to categorize beef cattle for RFI. Further validation is required to confirm the potential of these metabolites as biomarkers for FE selection.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→