Genetic and genomic analyses of embryo production in dairy cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian dairy industry has been using invivo and invitro assisted reproductive technologies to produce embryos. Technological improvements have helped increase the number and quality of embryos produced, but genetic and genomic tools for improving these traits have yet to be assessed for the Canadian Holstein population. Genetic parameters and a genome-wide association study were performed in Canadian Holstein for the total number of embryos (NE) and the number of viable embryos (VE). Results showed potential for genetic selection for both NE and VE, with heritability estimates (± s.e.) of approximately 0.15±0.01. Genetic correlations between the number of embryos produced using different procedures (invivo and invitro) suggested that a similar number of embryos should be expected from a donor regardless of the procedure used. A region on chromosome 11 of the bovine genome was found to be significantly associated with the number of embryos, indicating a potential regulatory role of this region on embryo production. Overall, these findings are of interest for the Canadian dairy industry because they provide useful information for breeders that are interested in producing embryos from the elite donors in their herds or in the population using assisted reproductive technologies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".