Genetic parameters and multi-trait genomic prediction for hemoparasites infection levels in cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Babesiosis and anaplasmosis are tick-borne diseases that substantially affect the economic outcomes of livestock production in tropical countries. This study aimed to evaluate the genetics of resistance to infection caused by these parasites through the estimation of heritabilities and genetic correlations of infection levels among Babesia bigemina (BigIL), B. bovis (BovIL), and Anaplasma marginale (AmIL), and tick counts (TC). The predictive ability of single and multi-trait genomic prediction models was evaluated through various combinations of these traits. To our knowledge, this is the first genomic study to examine BigIL and AmIL. Infection levels of BigIL ( n = 1,882), BovIL ( n = 1,858), and AmIL ( n = 1,523) were estimated from blood samples using real-time PCR. TC phenotypes ( n = 5,867) were obtained by counting the number of parasites larger than 4.5 mm from the right-hand side of each animal. Genotypic data were available for 3,977 animals which were then imputed up to ∼777,000 SNP and, after quality control, 502,398 SNP remained for downstream analyses. Variance components for BigIL and AmIL and the genetic correlations between traits were estimated using a Bayesian approach. The single-step best linear unbiased prediction was used to estimate genomic breeding values (GBV). The heritability estimates for BigIL and AmIL were low at 0.094 and 0.090, respectively, suggesting high environmental influence levels for both traits. The genetic correlations between tick count and infection levels for BigIL (0.239), BovIL (0.160), and AmIL (-0.019) were low, as well as the correlation between AmIL and BovIL (0.043). The genetic correlations between BigIL and BovIL (0.524) and BigIL and AmIL (0.793) were high, which contributed to improved GBV accuracies when these traits were combined in multi-trait models in comparison to single-trait models. These results suggested that multi-trait genomic prediction models of infection levels for tick-borne diseases are preferable to single-trait models. Additionally, our results indicated that the TC data and the GBV based on them are not useful for predicting infection levels of BigIL, BovIL, and AmIL.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".