The DOI matches its Crossref record; 56 of the 56 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Gut microbiome composition differences among breeds impact feed efficiency in swine
Open accessAbstract
Background: Feed efficiency is a crucial parameter in swine production, given both its economic and environmental impact. The gut microbiota plays an essential role in nutrient digestibility and is, therefore, likely to affect feed efficiency. This study aimed to characterize feed efficiency, fatness traits, and gut microbiome composition in three major breeds of domesticated swine and investigate a possible link between feed efficiency and gut microbiota composition. Results: Average daily feed intake (ADFI), average daily gain (ADG), feed conversion ratio (FCR), residual feed intake (RFI), backfat, loin depth, and intramuscular fat of 615 pigs belonging to the Duroc (DR), Landrace (LR), and Large White (LW) breeds were measured. Gut microbiota composition was characterized by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Orthogonal contrasts between paternal line (DR) and maternal lines (LR+LW) and between the two maternal lines (LR versus LW) were performed. Average daily feed intake and ADG were statistically different with DR having lower ADFI and ADG compared to LR and LW. Landrace and LW had a similar ADG and RFI, with higher ADFI and FCR for LW. Alpha diversity was higher in the fecal microbial communities of LR pigs than in those of DR and LW pigs for all time points considered. Duroc communities had significantly higher proportional representation of the Catenibacterium and Clostridium genera compared to LR and LW, while LR pigs had significantly higher proportions of Bacteroides than LW for all time points considered. Amplicon sequence variants from multiple genera (including Anaerovibrio,Bacteroides,Blautia,Clostridium,Dorea,Eubacterium,Faecalibacterium,Lactobacillus,Oscillibacter, and Ruminococcus) were found to be significantly associated with feed efficiency, regardless of the time point considered. Conclusions: In this study, we characterized differences in the composition of the fecal microbiota of three commercially relevant breeds of swine, both over time and between breeds. Correlations between different microbiome compositions and feed efficiency were established. This suggests that the microbial community may contribute to shaping host productive parameters. Moreover, our study provides important insights into how the intestinal microbial community might influence host energy harvesting capacity. A deeper understanding of this process may allow us to modulate the gut microbiome in order to raise more efficient animals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing
R Core Team (2025) · doi:10.32614/r.manuals · Cited by 352,181
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
Robinson, M. D., McCarthy, D. J., & Smyth, G. K. (2010) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp616 · Cited by 41,364
Modern Applied Statistics with S
Venables, W. N., & Ripley, B. D. (2002) · Statistics and Computing · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-21706-2 · Cited by 24,305
Silhouettes: A graphical aid to the interpretation and validation of cluster analysis
Rousseeuw, P. J. (1987) · Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics · doi:10.1016/0377-0427(87)90125-7 · Cited by 21,392
phyloseq: An R Package for Reproducible Interactive Analysis and Graphics of Microbiome Census Data
McMurdie, P. J., & Holmes, S. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0061217 · Cited by 21,322
Metagenomic biomarker discovery and explanation
Segata, N., Izard, J., Waldron, L., Gevers, D., Miropolsky, L., Garrett, W. S., & Huttenhower, C. (2011) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-6-r60 · Cited by 16,192
FLASH: fast length adjustment of short reads to improve genome assemblies
Magoč, T., & Salzberg, S. L. (2011) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507 · Cited by 15,366
Enterotypes of the human gut microbiome
MetaHIT Consortium (additional members), Arumugam, M., Raes, J., Pelletier, E., Le Paslier, D., Yamada, T., Mende, D. R., Fernandes, G. R., Tap, J., Bruls, T., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09944 · Cited by 7,548
Host-gut microbiota metabolic interactions
Nicholson, J. K., Holmes, E., Kinross, J., Burcelin, R., Gibson, G., Jia, W., & Pettersson, S. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1223813 · Cited by 4,760
Metadata
- Authors
- Bergamaschi, M., Tiezzi, F., Howard, J., Huang, Y. J., Gray, K. A., Schillebeeckx, C., McNulty, N. P., & Maltecca, C.
- Venue
- Microbiome
- Published
- 2020-07-22
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 110-110
- ISSN
- 2049-2618 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3044339450
- Cited by
- 258
- References
- 56
- FWCI
- 21.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Gut microbiome composition differences among breeds impact feed efficiency in swine. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/s40168-020-00888-9
- The paper
- Bergamaschi, M., Tiezzi, F., Howard, J., Huang, Y. J., Gray, K. A., Schillebeeckx, C., McNulty, N. P., & Maltecca, C. (2020). Gut microbiome composition differences among breeds impact feed efficiency in swine. Microbiome. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-020-00888-9
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.