743 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 28526795)
1. Exploring a Possible Link between the Intestinal Microbiota and Feed Efficiency in Pigs.
McCormack UM; Curião T; Buzoianu SG; Prieto ML; Ryan T; Varley P; Crispie F; Magowan E; Metzler-Zebeli BU; Berry D; O'Sullivan O; Cotter PD; Gardiner GE; Lawlor PG
Appl Environ Microbiol; 2017 Aug; 83(15):. PubMed ID: 28526795
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Porcine Feed Efficiency-Associated Intestinal Microbiota and Physiological Traits: Finding Consistent Cross-Locational Biomarkers for Residual Feed Intake.
McCormack UM; Curião T; Metzler-Zebeli BU; Magowan E; Berry DP; Reyer H; Prieto ML; Buzoianu SG; Harrison M; Rebeiz N; Crispie F; Cotter PD; O'Sullivan O; Gardiner GE; Lawlor PG
mSystems; 2019 Jun; 4(4):. PubMed ID: 31213524
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Interactions between metabolically active bacteria and host gene expression at the cecal mucosa in pigs of diverging feed efficiency.
Metzler-Zebeli BU; Lawlor PG; Magowan E; Zebeli Q
J Anim Sci; 2018 Jun; 96(6):2249-2264. PubMed ID: 29746643
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Improvement of Feed Efficiency in Pigs through Microbial Modulation via Fecal Microbiota Transplantation in Sows and Dietary Supplementation of Inulin in Offspring.
McCormack UM; Curião T; Metzler-Zebeli BU; Wilkinson T; Reyer H; Crispie F; Cotter PD; Creevey CJ; Gardiner GE; Lawlor PG
Appl Environ Microbiol; 2019 Nov; 85(22):. PubMed ID: 31519656
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Gut microbiome composition differences among breeds impact feed efficiency in swine.
Bergamaschi M; Tiezzi F; Howard J; Huang YJ; Gray KA; Schillebeeckx C; McNulty NP; Maltecca C
Microbiome; 2020 Jul; 8(1):110. PubMed ID: 32698902
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Intestinal microbiota profiles associated with low and high residual feed intake in chickens across two geographical locations.
Siegerstetter SC; Schmitz-Esser S; Magowan E; Wetzels SU; Zebeli Q; Lawlor PG; O'Connell NE; Metzler-Zebeli BU
PLoS One; 2017; 12(11):e0187766. PubMed ID: 29141016
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Evaluating the association between feed efficiency and the fecal microbiota of early-life Duroc pigs using 16S rRNA sequencing.
Si J; Feng L; Gao J; Huang Y; Zhang G; Mo J; Zhu S; Qi W; Liang J; Lan G
AMB Express; 2020 Jun; 10(1):115. PubMed ID: 32562009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. Pigs that are divergent in feed efficiency, differ in intestinal enzyme and nutrient transporter gene expression, nutrient digestibility and microbial activity.
Vigors S; Sweeney T; O'Shea CJ; Kelly AK; O'Doherty JV
Animal; 2016 Nov; 10(11):1848-1855. PubMed ID: 27173889
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. The impact of feed efficiency selection on the ruminal, cecal, and fecal microbiomes of Angus steers from a commercial feedlot.
Welch CB; Lourenco JM; Davis DB; Krause TR; Carmichael MN; Rothrock MJ; Pringle TD; Callaway TR
J Anim Sci; 2020 Jul; 98(7):. PubMed ID: 32687166
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Fecal Microbiota Transplant from Highly Feed-Efficient Donors Shows Little Effect on Age-Related Changes in Feed-Efficiency-Associated Fecal Microbiota from Chickens.
Siegerstetter SC; Petri RM; Magowan E; Lawlor PG; Zebeli Q; O'Connell NE; Metzler-Zebeli BU
Appl Environ Microbiol; 2018 Jan; 84(2):. PubMed ID: 29101192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Identification of the relationship between the gut microbiome and feed efficiency in a commercial pig cohort.
Jiang H; Fang S; Yang H; Chen C
J Anim Sci; 2021 Mar; 99(3):. PubMed ID: 33570553
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Linkage between the intestinal microbiota and residual feed intake in broiler chickens.
Liu J; Stewart SN; Robinson K; Yang Q; Lyu W; Whitmore MA; Zhang G
J Anim Sci Biotechnol; 2021 Feb; 12(1):22. PubMed ID: 33573700
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Characterization of the rumen microbiota and its relationship with residual feed intake in sheep.
Zhang YK; Zhang XX; Li FD; Li C; Li GZ; Zhang DY; Song QZ; Li XL; Zhao Y; Wang WM
Animal; 2021 Mar; 15(3):100161. PubMed ID: 33785185
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Post-weaning blood transcriptomic differences between Yorkshire pigs divergently selected for residual feed intake.
Liu H; Nguyen YT; Nettleton D; Dekkers JC; Tuggle CK
BMC Genomics; 2016 Jan; 17():73. PubMed ID: 26801403
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Feed Restriction Modifies Intestinal Microbiota-Host Mucosal Networking in Chickens Divergent in Residual Feed Intake.
Metzler-Zebeli BU; Siegerstetter SC; Magowan E; Lawlor PG; Petri RM; O Connell NE; Zebeli Q
mSystems; 2019; 4(1):. PubMed ID: 30701192
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Differences in gut microbiota composition in finishing Landrace pigs with low and high feed conversion ratios.
Tan Z; Wang Y; Yang T; Ao H; Chen S; Xing K; Zhang F; Zhao X; Liu J; Wang C
Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek; 2018 Sep; 111(9):1673-1685. PubMed ID: 29497869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Genetic relationships between efficiency traits and gut microbiota traits in growing pigs being fed with a conventional or a high-fiber diet.
Déru V; Bouquet A; Zemb O; Blanchet B; De Almeida ML; Cauquil L; Carillier-Jacquin C; Gilbert H
J Anim Sci; 2022 Jun; 100(6):. PubMed ID: 35579995
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Colonic microbiome profiles for improved feed efficiency can be identified despite major effects of farm of origin and contemporary group in pigs.
Vigors S; O' Doherty JV; Sweeney T
Animal; 2020 Dec; 14(12):2472-2480. PubMed ID: 32605690
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Community composition of cecal microbiota in commercial yellow broilers with high and low feed efficiencies.
Huang Y; Lv H; Song Y; Sun C; Zhang Z; Chen S
Poult Sci; 2021 Apr; 100(4):100996. PubMed ID: 33667869
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. The Effect of Divergence in Feed Efficiency on the Intestinal Microbiota and the Intestinal Immune Response in Both Unchallenged and Lipopolysaccharide Challenged Ileal and Colonic Explants.
Vigors S; O'Doherty JV; Kelly AK; O'Shea CJ; Sweeney T
PLoS One; 2016; 11(2):e0148145. PubMed ID: 26840831
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
