Table 1.
Species | Phenotypes | N | Host genotype | Microbiome | Results | Refs. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cow | Methane emissions; rumen and blood metabolites; milk production efficiency | 1016 | 120k SNPs | 512 OTU | B > X | [15] |
Cow | Milk fatty acid content | 292 | 39k SNPs | 3055 OTU | XB ~ X | [35] |
Cow | Milk acetone and β-hydroxybutyric acid | 277 | 436k SNPs | 4226 OTU | B > X | [37] |
Rabbit | Feed efficiency; growth | 425 | Pedigree | 963 OTU | XB > X | [18] |
Japanese quail | Feed intake; P utilization; body weight gain; feed efficiency | 758 | 4k SNPs | 1188 OTU | B > X | [22] |
Pig | Daily gain; feed conversion; feed intake | 207 | 52k SNPs | 2714 OTU | B > X | [21] |
Pig | Meat quality | 1123 | 42k SNPs | 1755 OTU | XB > X | [34] |
Human | Dietary habits; anthropometric and blood measurements | 715 | 545k SNPs | 1.36 M genes (metagenomics) | XB > X | [36] |
N: Sample size
B > X: performance using microbiome was larger than with genotypes only; XB > X: holobiont model was better than using genotypes only; XB ~ X: both models performed similarly