Differences in the Gut Microbiota in Long-Term Infertile Holstein Repeat Breeder Cows and Healthy Fertile Holstein Cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Repeat breeder (RB) cows are subfertile animals and represent a major issue in the livestock industry. The influence of the gut microbiota on reproductive function and the gut microbiota–gonadal axis has garnered scientific attention. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between reproductive performance and gut microbiota in Holstein cows, depending on reproductive attempts (number of artificial inseminations or embryo transfers) and subsequent pregnancy outcomes. Fecal samples were collected from Holstein cows at the time of ovulation and classified into four groups: Normal pregnancy (n = 27, ≤three reproductive attempts, subsequently fertile), Normal open (n = 25, ≤three reproductive attempts, subsequently infertile), RB pregnancy (n = 38, over four reproductive attempts, subsequently fertile), and RB open (n = 60, over four reproductive attempts, subsequently infertile). The PLS-DA analysis revealed differences in classification among groups, especially between Normal pregnancy and RB open. Regarding α- and β-diversity analyses, these indices were significantly different among the four groups (p < 0.05). Using LEfSe analysis, three genus-level bacteria (Bacillus, Ruminococcus, and Sphingobium) were identified as specific bacteria in the Normal pregnancy group, and eight genus-level bacteria (Huintestinicola, Intestinimonas, Neglecta, Oscillibacter, Zongyangia, Phocaeicola, Alistipes, and Acholeplasma) were identified as specific bacteria in both open groups (p < 0.05). KEGG analysis predicted some pathways (Apoptosis, Lipopolysaccharide biosynthesis, etc.) to be enriched in both the open groups. MetaCyc analysis predicted amine and polyamine degradation/biosynthesis as the specific changing pathways in the RB open group. This study demonstrated that the composition of the gut microbiota differs between normal fertility and repeated infertility conditions. Furthermore, even with fewer reproductive attempts, differences in gut microbiota composition were observed between cows that conceived and those that failed to conceive.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".