MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114638642 · doi:10.1139/g02-063

Genetic diversity among Canadienne, Brown Swiss, Holstein, and Jersey cattle of Canada based on 15 bovine microsatellite markers

2002· article· en· W2114638642 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C. Hansen, J.N.B. Shrestha, R. J. Parker, G. H. Crow, P.J. McAlpine, James N. Derr

Bibliographic record

VenueGenome · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersRégion BretagneU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsBreedBiologyBrown SwissGenetic diversityMicrosatelliteLoss of heterozygosityAlleleHolstein CattleGenetic variationCoatGenotypingGeneticsDairy cattleGenotypeEcologyDemographyPopulationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The genetic diversity among Canadienne, Brown Swiss, Holstein, and Jersey cattle was estimated from relationships determined by genotyping 20 distantly related animals in each breed for 15 microsatellites located on separate chromosomes. The Canadienne, Holstein, and Jersey cattle had an average of six alleles per loci compared with five alleles for Brown Swiss. Furthermore, a number of potentially breed-specific alleles were identified. The allele size variance among breeds was similar, but varied considerably among loci. All of the loci studied were equally heterozygous, as were Brown Swiss, Canadienne, and Holstein cattle (0.68-0.69) whereas Jersey cattle showed lower heterozygosity (0.59). The within-breed estimates of genetic distance were greater than zero and significant. The genetic distance between Canadienne and Holstein (0.156), Brown Swiss (0.243), and Jersey (0.235) was negligible, suggesting close relationship. Concurrently, Brown Swiss and Holstein (0.211) cattle also demonstrated close relationship. In contrast, the Jersey breed was genetically distant from the Brown Swiss and Holstein cattle (0.427 and 0.320, respectively). The characterization of Canadienne cattle, as part of the genetic resource conservation effort currently underway in Canada, underscores the difficulty in scientifically establishing unique breeds. Therefore, the need to consider all relevant morphological characteristics and production performance in combination with available cultural, historical, pedigree, and molecular information becomes relevant when identifying breeds for conservation.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.131

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.160
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGenomeSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207