Short communication: Genetic correlations between number of embryos produced using in vivo and in vitro techniques in heifer and cow donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multiple embryos can be produced from a heifer or cow donors using an in vivo or an in vitro technique. Comparisons of the number of embryos produced by the same donors as heifers and cows and using different techniques are limited. The main objectives of this study were to assess the genetic correlation between the number of embryos produced by Holstein donors using an in vivo and in vitro technique as a heifer and as a cow. The data set used was recorded by Holstein Canada and included all successful superovulations or ovum pickup and in vitro fertilization procedures performed on Holstein donors for more than 20yr. The type of technique used was known for all records and the status of the donor at recovery was retrieved from calving records. Bivariate repeatability animal model analyses were performed for both the total number of embryos (NE) and the number of viable embryos (VE) recovered per procedure. Logarithmic transformation was performed on the traits to normalize the data. Heritability estimates for the donor varied between 0.14 (0.02) and 0.19 (0.03) over all analyses, indicating that the number of embryos produced by a donor is influenced by the genetic potential of the donor. Genetic correlations between records produced in vivo and in vitro were moderately high and positive (NE=0.85±0.07; VE=0.63±0.09), suggesting that donors with high genetic potential for in vivo superovulation tend also to have high potential to produce multiple embryos in vitro. Similarly, the moderately high genetic correlations (NE=0.79±0.05; VE=0.72±0.05) found between heifer and cow records indicate that a donor tends to produce a comparable number of embryos as a heifer or as a cow. The estimated repeatabilities (0.23 to 0.35) indicated that the number of embryos recovered should be somewhat repeatable in the same donor over time. On the other hand, the service sires seem not to play an important role on the total number of embryos produced by a donor no matter the technique used or the status of the donor at recovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".