Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 4 Comparison of the performance of different measures and estimators of IMF%

From: A gene expression estimator of intramuscular fat percentage for use in both cattle and sheep

Method Number of animals1 WA control subgroup WA HGP subgroup P-value2 Predicted experiment size3
NIRS measured IMF% 141 2.37 ± 1.004 1.90 ± 0.83 0.001 198
Ultrasound estimated IMF% 173 2.66 ± 0.724 2.93 ± 0.54 1.000 N/A5
NIRS measured IMF% 22 2.07 ± 0.774 1.79 ± 0.54 0.340 294
IMF% calculated by CIDEA formula 22 2.30 ± 1.196 1.60 ± 1.14 0.080 148
IMF% calculated by IMF 5 gene set formula 22 2.66 ± 1.046 1.30 ± 0.92 0.003 26
Ranking animals using CIDEA 22 9.50 ± 6.627 13.20 ± 6.16 0.100 156
Ranking animals using IMF 5 gene set 22 7.20 ± 5.478 15.10 ± 4.99 0.0026 22
Ranking animals using TAG gene set 22 7.00 ± 4.528 15.30 ± 5.48 0.0017 20
CIDEA DE 22 13.09 ± 0.447 12.83 ± 0.38 0.080 130
IMF 5 gene set DE 22 0.25 ± 0.389 −0.27 ± 0.31 0.0014 24
TAG gene set DE 22 0.28 ± 0.369 −0.27 ± 0.33 0.00076 20
  1. 1Number of animals used for the analysis.
  2. 2For the test that average measured or estimated IMF%/gene expression/ranking in HGP-treated animals is lower than in control animals.
  3. 3The sample size predicted to be required to observe a significant result (P < 0.05) with 95% confidence intervals.
  4. 4Mean values, standard deviation and P-values are calculated using original record data.
  5. 5Ultrasound estimated IMF% did not detect an effect of the expected direction.
  6. 6Mean values, standard deviation and P-values are calculated using rescaled gene expression values.
  7. 7Mean values, standard deviation and P-values of ranking and DE of CIDEA are calculated using rescaled gene expression values.
  8. 8Mean values, standard deviation and P-values of ranking calculation of IMF 5 gene set and TAG gene set are based on Mann-Witney test.
  9. 9Mean values, standard deviation and P-values of IMF 5 gene set and TAG gene set DE are calculated using rescaled gene expression values.