↓ Skip to main content

Genome-wide association and systems genetic analyses of residual feed intake, daily feed consumption, backfat and weight gain in pigs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genetics, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
79 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Genome-wide association and systems genetic analyses of residual feed intake, daily feed consumption, backfat and weight gain in pigs
Published in
BMC Genetics, January 2014
DOI 10.1186/1471-2156-15-27
Pubmed ID
Authors

Duy Do, Tage Ostersen, Anders Strathe, Thomas Mark, Just Jensen, Haja N Kadarmideen

Abstract

Feed efficiency is one of the major components determining costs of animal production. Residual feed intake (RFI) is defined as the difference between the observed and the expected feed intake given a certain production. Residual feed intake 1 (RFI1) was calculated based on regression of individual daily feed intake (DFI) on initial test weight and average daily gain. Residual feed intake 2 (RFI2) was as RFI1 except it was also regressed with respect to backfat (BF). It has been shown to be a sensitive and accurate measure for feed efficiency in livestock but knowledge of the genomic regions and mechanisms affecting RFI in pigs is lacking. The study aimed to identify genetic markers and candidate genes for RFI and its component traits as well as pathways associated with RFI in Danish Duroc boars by genome-wide associations and systems genetic analyses.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 79 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 1%
India 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Mexico 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 74 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 30%
Student > Master 12 15%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 15 19%
Unknown 6 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 54 68%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 5 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Neuroscience 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 11 14%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 May 2014.
All research outputs
#9,083,282
of 11,346,162 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genetics
#530
of 776 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,056
of 186,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genetics
#13
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,346,162 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 776 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.3. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 186,549 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.