MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Factors Associated with N-specific IgG Response in Piglets Experimentally Infected with Porcine Reproductive and Respiratory Syndrome Virus

2014· report· en· W144630151 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Andrew S. Hess, Benjamin R. Trible, Yu Wang, Bob Rowland, Joan K. Lunney, Jack C. M. Dekkers

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Virus Infections Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGenome Canada
KeywordsPorcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virusBiologyAntibody responseVirologyAntibodyVirusPorcine circovirusCrossbreedImmunologyMajor histocompatibility complexAntigenGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined serum porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus (PRRSV) N protein-specific IgG levels from sera collected from 464 Large White-Landrace commercial crossbred piglets from three separate experimental infection trials with PRRSV isolate NVSL-97- 7895. IgG levels at 42 days post infection (dpi) were measured by fluorescent microsphere immunoassay, herein referred to as total antibody (tAb) response. tAb levels were assessed for an association with different disease-related traits, the presence of a heritable genetic component, and for genomic regions associated with tAb response. tAb response was negatively associated with viral load (VL) and weight gain from 28-42 dpi (WG) and positively associated with virus rebound (REB) and neutralizing antibody (nAb) levels. Furthermore, tAb response had a heritable genetic component, with a major QTL located on chromosome 7 in the major histocompatibility complex (MHC), whereby heterozygous individuals had a lower tAb response and increased weight gain from 28-42 dpi. These results suggest that genetic selection for tAb response may be useful for selecting for pigs that have increased resistance or reduced susceptibility to PRRSV.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.093
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Virus Infections StudiesFrench-language works237,207