Genetic Regulation of Immune Responses in Holstein Dairy Cows across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diseases that affect dairy cattle have serious economic and animal welfare implications. The inclusion of immune response (IR) traits in breeding indices has been suggested to improve inherent animal health, and decrease the use of antimicrobials. The objectives of this research were to (1) evaluate cell-mediated (CMIR) and antibody-mediated immune responses (AMIR) on 680 Holstein cows from 58 herds across Canada, (2) estimate genetic parameters of these traits (3) examine the associations with routinely evaluated traits as well as the incidence of mastitis, (4) evaluate the correlation of natural and specific antibody and (5) perform a genome-wide association study (GWAS) to determine genetic markers associated with high or low IR. In collaboration with the Canadian Bovine Mastitis Research Network cows were immunized with both a type 1 and type 2 test antigen to stimulate CMIR and AMIR, respectively. A cutaneous delayed-type hypersensitivity test to the type 1 test antigen was used as an indicator of CMIR, and serum antibody (IgG1 and IgG2) to the type 2 test antigen as an indicator of AMIR. IR phenotypes varied significantly by cow, herd and region in Canada. Heritability estimates were moderate, 0.19 for CMIR and 0.16-0.43 for AMIR depending on time in the immunization protocol and antibody isotype. Beneficial associations between AMIR and some reproductive traits were found. Using estimated breeding values, cows were classified as high, average or low responders. High AMIR cows had significantly lower incidence rates of clinical mastitis compared to average and low cows. No difference was found when cows were classified based on CMIR. Natural antibody was not genetically correlated with specific antibody nor was it associated with mastitis. The GWAS found 198 genetic markers significantly associated with AMIR, with the majority on chromosome 23 where the major histocompatability complex is located. Other significant genes involved in IR include those associated with the complement system, interleukin 17 and tumor necrosis factor. This research confirms the benefit of identifying high IR cows and gives a glimpse of current IR profiles in Canadian Holsteins. This was the first GWAS for IR traits in dairy cattle and suggests it may be possible to include IR traits in genomic selection indices.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".