Population and genetic features, genomic inbriding and homozy-gosity level for black-and-white and holstein breeds by STR and SNP markers in Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The object of the study was sires of the Black-and-White and Holstein breeds, which had STR profiles and passed the genotyping procedure for SNP markers. The subject of the study was the level of genomic inbreeding and homozygosity, as well as population-genetic characteristics based on them. With an increase in Fx based on pedigree data, an increase in the level of genomic inbreeding (FROH) calculated from SNP markers was also noted. The results for 9 STR markers record a wavelike increase in homozygosity from group I to group IV with a subsequent increase from group V to group VII inclusive. During the study of the average FROH values in accordance with the years of birth of sires, a significant difference was found between the last two groups (2009-2011; 2012-2014) from all the others in a pairwise comparison. The results of calculating the FROHand Ca9 of bulls from different countries of origin indicate a statistically significant differentiation of the group of animals from Russia (RF) from animals, born in German and Canadian. A significant difference was noted for the highest FROH level in the samples in the Holstein Black-and-White breed from the Red-and-White Holstein and Black-and-White breeds. The Fst values between the SNP and STR species of the animals had insignificant differentiation (0.008-0.027). Differences in STR calculation between the Black-and-White Holstein and Red-and-White Holstein breeds were insignificant, less than 20%, while the rest of the values differed many times. Fst between RF and Germany, RF and the Netherlands according to STR data is 0.006 and 0.008, according to SNP data 0.005 and 0.006, respectively. A mutual increase in the value of Fst and the year of birth of the sires was noted, emphasizing the greatest remoteness of the population of 1983-1997 from the populations of recent years, when new genotypes of bulls were obtained. The similarity of Fst values between genealogical lines is replaced by a significant scatter in the indicators when they are compared in pairs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".