4.7 Article

Genetic basis and risk factors for infectious and noninfectious diseases in US Holsteins. I. Estimation of genetic parameters for single diseases and general health

期刊

JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE
卷 88, 期 3, 页码 1199-1207

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(05)72786-7

关键词

disease resistance; generalized immunity; genetic evaluation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Health data collected from 1996 to 1999 from 177 herds in Minnesota and Wisconsin were analyzed to establish genetic basis for infectious and noninfectious diseases. Three types of health traits were targeted. First, available infectious conditions were used to identify animals that are superior in their general immunity (including innate immunity) for infectious diseases. Generalized immunity may be thought of as a combination of immune responses to a variety of immune system challenges. Second, single infectious and noninfectious diseases were analyzed separately. Third, infectious reproductive diseases as one category of related conditions, and cystic ovary disease as one category of 3 related noninfectious ovary disorders were studied. Data were analyzed using a threshold model that included herd, calving year, season of calving, and parity as cross-classified fixed factors; and sire and cow within sires as random effects. Days at risk and days in milk at the beginning of a record were included by fitting the days as continuous covariates in the model. A heritability value of 0.202 +/- 0.083 was estimated for generalized immunity. Heritability values of 0.141 and 0.161 were estimated for uterine infection and mastitis, respectively. Heritability of single noninfectious disorders ranged from 0.087 to 0.349. The amount of additive genetic variance recovered in the underlying scale of noninfectious disorders tended to zero when combining multiple conditions. The study supports combining infectious diseases into categories of interest but we do not recommend the same approach for noninfectious disorders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据