Current challenges in the diagnosis and control of bovine anaplasmosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bovine anaplasmosis, caused by the intracellular rickettsia Anaplasma marginale, continues to impact cattle production in the US. Control and management of bovine anaplasmosis is influenced by our understanding of the complexity of this pathogen, interactions with both cattle and tick hosts, and the disease. A. marginale is maintained in nature through biological transmission by ticks and mechanical transmission by any means of blood transfer from infected to susceptible cattle. The major surface protein 5 (MSP5)-based cELISA, approved for use in the US and Canada, has proven to be a sensitive serologic test. However, more recently this test has been shown to be cross-reactive with closely related organisms, including A. phagocytophilum, because of the conservation of MSP5. Therefore, additional molecular tests may be required in some situations to confirm the identity of the infective agent. While tetracycline antimicrobials are approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for prevention or treatment of acute anaplasmosis, no antimicrobials are labeled for elimination of persistent A. marginale infection. Administration of tetracyclines is an important means of preventing clinical anaplasmosis, but does not prevent cattle from becoming infected with A. marginale. The mode of action of tetracycline is bacteriostatic rather than bactericidal, and its long-term use does not consistently clear cattle of persistent A. marginale infections. USDA approved vaccines for anaplasmosis are currently unavailable. The challenges of vaccine development include the antigenic variation of A. marginale that occurs during persistent infections and the increased antigenic diversity of A. marginale strains, especially in areas of ongoing cattle movement. The overall goal of this and a previous overview is to summarize the current status of knowledge and research on bovine anaplasmosis, and to provide veterinarians with answers to frequently asked questions.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".