MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2905671208 · doi:10.3168/jds.2018-15552

The relationship between anogenital distance and fertility, and genome-wide associations for anogenital distance in Irish Holstein-Friesian cows

2018· article· en· W2905671208 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Gobikrushanth, Deirdre C. Purfield, J. Kenneally, R.C. Doyle, S.A. Holden, Plúa Martínez, E. Rojas Cañadas, T.C. Bruinjé, M.G. Colazo, D.J. Ambrose, S.T. Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta MilkAlberta InnovatesTeagascRussian Science FoundationDepartment of Agriculture, Food and the Marine, IrelandUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsAnogenital distanceHeritabilityBiologyAnimal scienceCoefficient of variationRumpGeneticsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evaluation of anogenital distance (AGD), the distance from the center of the anus to base of the clitoris, as a potential fertility trait for genetic selection in dairy cows has generated recent interest. The objectives of this cross-sectional observational study were to (1) characterize the distribution and variability of AGD, (2) determine factors associated with AGD, (3) estimate heritability for AGD, (4) identify single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) associated with phenotypic variation of AGD, and (5) validate the relationship between categories of AGD and fertility in Irish Holstein-Friesian cows. Anogenital distance was measured using digital calipers in 1,180 Holstein cows (mean ± standard deviation: 225 ± 79 d in milk) from 10 dairy herds located in Munster, Ireland. In addition, age (yr), weight (kg), height at hip (cm), and body condition score (BCS) at the time of AGD measurement were determined in a subset of 281 cows. Genotype information available from 908 cows was subsequently imputed to the Illumina Bovine High Density BeadChip (Illumina Inc., San Diego, CA) for genome-wide association analysis of phenotypic variation in AGD. Overall, AGD had a normal distribution and high variability (mean ± standard deviation; 119.2 ± 11.6 mm). Anogenital distance was weakly but positively associated with cow age, hip height, and body weight, and negatively associated with BCS; the phenotypic variation in AGD that was explainable by these variables was small (coefficient of determination; R 2 = 0.09, 0.06, 0.10, and 0.02, respectively). The estimated heritability for AGD was 0.37 (standard error of mean ± 0.08). Six SNP of suggestive significance were identified on Bos taurus autosomes 6, 15, 20, and 26; however, none of these SNP was related to previously identified candidate genes for fertility. Cows were categorized into quartiles (Q1; 86 to 111 mm; n=311, Q2; 112 to 120 mm; n=330; Q3; 121 to 127 mm; n=265, and Q4; 128 to 160 mm; n=274) based on AGD and the association with reproductive outcomes examined (21-d submission rate, pregnancy to first AI, pregnancy rate within 21, 42 and 84-d after the farm mating start date, and number of times bred). None of the reproductive variables differed significantly between AGD categories. In summary, despite identification of high variability and moderate heritability for AGD in Irish Holstein-Friesian cows, reproductive outcomes did not differ between categories of AGD. This latter result differs from our previous finding of an inverse relationship between AGD and pregnancy outcomes in first- and second-parity Canadian Holstein cows, emphasizing the need to test and validate this new phenotype in diverse cow populations.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations26
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy Science→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→