The Impact of the Chromosome Alterations in the Reproductive Efficiency of the Domestic Animal Carriers: the Role of the Reciprocal Translocations in the Porcine Reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The chromosome alterations with higher negative impact on reproduction of domestic species, particularly on swine (Sus scrofa domestica), are the reciprocal translocations (rcp). It is clear that its economic consequences are very important if the animals are selected to produce a large number of litters such as those used in insemination centres. Until 2008 a number of 148 reciprocal translocations between two non-homologous chromosomes, as well as three different types of reciprocal translocations in those three non-homologous chromosomes are involved and three different Robertsonian translocations have been described in pigs. The chromosomes involved in the first group were all of the chromosome complement including the sexual ones, appearing involved in the reciprocal translocations among three non-homologous chromosomes the pairs 2, 4, 9, 14 and 15 and the pairs 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the Robertsonian translocations. The effects on the prolificacy in some of the types of these chromosome alterations have been analyzed. In these cases a clear reduction was observed when the females were inseminated with semen from carriers of translocations males. In some of them the percentage of fertility reduction has been calculated, observing in some cases even the sterility of the carrier animals. Other negative effects in some translocations, as the presence of congenital malformations in the newborn piglets, have been observed. Following the literature in sixteen countries from Europe (mainly France and Sweden) plus EEUU, Canada and India these alterations have been detected, without doubt result of their political of systematic studies of breeders.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".