Relationship between Escherichia coli virulence factors and postpartum metritis in dairy cows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to report the prevalence of Escherichia coli and Trueperella pyogenes in the uterus of postpartum dairy cows before the onset of postpartum metritis (PPM) and to quantify their association with subsequent occurrence of PPM, to quantify the association between the presence of genes encoding E. coli virulence factors (VF) and PPM, and to determine the accuracy of using early postpartum uterine bacteriology results (bacteria and VF) to identify cows at risk of PPM. A prospective cohort study was conducted on 3 commercial dairy farms. Uterine swabs were collected from 371 Holstein dairy cows (3 commercial herds) at 1 to 7d in milk and submitted to the laboratory for identification of E. coli, T. pyogenes, and E. coli VF. A total of 40 VF were tested using the radioactive probe hybridization method. Postpartum metritis was defined as the presence of a fetid watery red-brown uterine discharge, associated with fever (rectal temperature >39.5°C), and systemic signs of illness (dullness, reduced appetite, and milk production). Surveillance of PPM was done by trained farmers blinded to laboratory results and cows were followed until 21d in milk. Statistical analyses were conducted using 2×2 tables and mixed logistical regression models. Prevalences of E. coli, T. pyogenes, and PPM were 42, 34, and 15%, respectively. A total of 32 VF were found in E. coli isolates. Most prevalent VF were extraintestinal pathogenic genes such as fimH (89%), hlyE (87%), and iss (70%). Cows positive for intrauterine E. coli were 3.2 times more likely to have subsequent PPM compared with bacteriologically negative cows. Cows with VF hra1 in their uterus were 2.7 times more likely to have PPM than cows positive for E. coli and negative for hra1 and 5.9 times more likely than bacteriologically negative cows. Cows with VF kpsMTII in their uterus were 3.2 times more likely to have PPM than cows positive for E. coli and negative for kpsMTII and 6.2 times more likely than bacteriologically negative cows. Using E. coli, hra1, and kpsMTII as predictors for subsequent PPM, positive predictive values were 23, 31, and 42%, respectively, whereas the negative predictive values were 91, 80, and 78%, respectively. Overall, these results showed that E. coli and some VF were associated with PPM.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".