Literature DB >> 35775583

Exploring methods to summarize gut microbiota composition for microbiability estimation and phenotypic prediction in swine.

Yuqing He1, Francesco Tiezzi1,2, Jicai Jiang1, Jeremy Howard3, Yijian Huang3, Kent Gray3, Jung-Woo Choi4, Christian Maltecca1.   

Abstract

The microbial composition resemblance among individuals in a group can be summarized in a square covariance matrix and fitted in linear models. We investigated eight approaches to create the matrix that quantified the resemblance between animals based on the gut microbiota composition. We aimed to compare the performance of different methods in estimating trait microbiability and predicting growth and body composition traits in three pig breeds. This study included 651 purebred boars from either breed: Duroc (n = 205), Landrace (n = 226), and Large White (n = 220). Growth and body composition traits, including body weight (BW), ultrasound backfat thickness (BF), ultrasound loin depth (LD), and ultrasound intramuscular fat (IMF) content, were measured on live animals at the market weight (156 ± 2.5 d of age). Rectal swabs were taken from each animal at 158 ± 4 d of age and subjected to 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Eight methods were used to create the microbial similarity matrices, including 4 kernel functions (Linear Kernel, LK; Polynomial Kernel, PK; Gaussian Kernel, GK; Arc-cosine Kernel with one hidden layer, AK1), 2 dissimilarity methods (Bray-Curtis, BC; Jaccard, JA), and 2 ordination methods (Metric Multidimensional Scaling, MDS; Detrended Correspondence analysis, DCA). Based on the matrix used, microbiability estimates ranged from 0.07 to 0.21 and 0.12 to 0.53 for Duroc, 0.03 to 0.21 and 0.05 to 0.44 for Landrace, and 0.02 to 0.24 and 0.05 to 0.52 for Large White pigs averaged over traits in the model with sire, pen, and microbiome, and model with the only microbiome, respectively. The GK, JA, BC, and AK1 obtained greater microbiability estimates than the remaining methods across traits and breeds. Predictions were made within each breed group using four-fold cross-validation based on the relatedness of sires in each breed group. The prediction accuracy ranged from 0.03 to 0.18 for BW, 0.08 to 0.31 for BF, 0.21 to 0.48 for LD, and 0.04 to 0.16 for IMF when averaged across breeds. The BC, MDS, LK, and JA achieved better accuracy than other methods in most predictions. Overall, the PK and DCA exhibited the worst performance compared to other microbiability estimation and prediction methods. The current study shows how alternative approaches summarized the resemblance of gut microbiota composition among animals and contributed this information to variance component estimation and phenotypic prediction in swine.
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Gut microbiota; microbiability; microbial similarity matrix; prediction; swine

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35775583      PMCID: PMC9492266          DOI: 10.1093/jas/skac231

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.338


  39 in total

Review 1.  Genomic similarity and kernel methods II: methods for genomic information.

Authors:  Daniel J Schaid
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  2010-07-03       Impact factor: 0.444

2.  Beta-diversity metrics of the upper digestive tract microbiome are associated with body mass index.

Authors:  Shih-Wen Lin; Neal D Freedman; Jianxin Shi; Mitchell H Gail; Emily Vogtmann; Guoqin Yu; Vanja Klepac-Ceraj; Bruce J Paster; Bruce A Dye; Guo-Qing Wang; Wen-Qiang Wei; Jin-Hu Fan; You-Lin Qiao; Sanford M Dawsey; Christian C Abnet
Journal:  Obesity (Silver Spring)       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 5.002

Review 3.  Microbial ecology of the gastrointestinal tract.

Authors:  D C Savage
Journal:  Annu Rev Microbiol       Date:  1977       Impact factor: 15.500

4.  Species identity dominates over environment in shaping the microbiota of small mammals.

Authors:  S C L Knowles; R M Eccles; L Baltrūnaitė
Journal:  Ecol Lett       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 9.492

5.  Metagenomic predictions: from microbiome to complex health and environmental phenotypes in humans and cattle.

Authors:  Elizabeth M Ross; Peter J Moate; Leah C Marett; Ben G Cocks; Ben J Hayes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Measuring β-diversity with species abundance data.

Authors:  Louise J Barwell; Nick J B Isaac; William E Kunin
Journal:  J Anim Ecol       Date:  2015-03-21       Impact factor: 5.091

7.  Genomic Selection in Rubber Tree Breeding: A Comparison of Models and Methods for Managing G×E Interactions.

Authors:  Livia M Souza; Felipe R Francisco; Paulo S Gonçalves; Erivaldo J Scaloppi Junior; Vincent Le Guen; Roberto Fritsche-Neto; Anete P Souza
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2019-10-25       Impact factor: 5.753

8.  Inflammation-associated enterotypes, host genotype, cage and inter-individual effects drive gut microbiota variation in common laboratory mice.

Authors:  Falk Hildebrand; Thi Loan Anh Nguyen; Brigitta Brinkman; Roberto Garcia Yunta; Benedicte Cauwe; Peter Vandenabeele; Adrian Liston; Jeroen Raes
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2013-01-24       Impact factor: 13.583

9.  Comparing bioinformatic pipelines for microbial 16S rRNA amplicon sequencing.

Authors:  Andrei Prodan; Valentina Tremaroli; Harald Brolin; Aeilko H Zwinderman; Max Nieuwdorp; Evgeni Levin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-01-16       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.