Methods of Evaluating the Potential Success or Failure of Transition Dairy Cows

Mezzetti, Matteo; Trevisi, Erminio

doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2023.02.008

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Indeed, many metabolites have level thresholds, which can allow the identification of cows at risk of compromising performance and health. Although these thresholds are not yet well-defined, several studies are being conducted to establish these subclinical thresholds [ 21 , 22 ]. Moreover, animals with suboptimal or critical values can be found at both the extremes of the metabolite distribution (e.g., urea and total proteins), which complicates selective breeding programs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genomic prediction of blood biomarkers of metabolic disorders in Holstein cattle using parametric and nonparametric models

Mota,

Giannuzzi,

Pegolo

et al. 2024

Genet Sel Evol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Metabolic disturbances adversely impact productive and reproductive performance of dairy cattle due to changes in endocrine status and immune function, which increase the risk of disease. This may occur in the post-partum phase, but also throughout lactation, with sub-clinical symptoms. Recently, increased attention has been directed towards improved health and resilience in dairy cattle, and genomic selection (GS) could be a helpful tool for selecting animals that are more resilient to metabolic disturbances throughout lactation. Hence, we evaluated the genomic prediction of serum biomarkers levels for metabolic distress in 1353 Holsteins genotyped with the 100K single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) chip assay. The GS was evaluated using parametric models best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), Bayesian B (BayesB), elastic net (ENET), and nonparametric models, gradient boosting machine (GBM) and stacking ensemble (Stack), which combines ENET and GBM approaches. Results The results show that the Stack approach outperformed other methods with a relative difference (RD), calculated as an increment in prediction accuracy, of approximately 18.0% compared to GBLUP, 12.6% compared to BayesB, 8.7% compared to ENET, and 4.4% compared to GBM. The highest RD in prediction accuracy between other models with respect to GBLUP was observed for haptoglobin (hapto) from 17.7% for BayesB to 41.2% for Stack; for Zn from 9.8% (BayesB) to 29.3% (Stack); for ceruloplasmin (CuCp) from 9.3% (BayesB) to 27.9% (Stack); for ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP) from 8.0% (BayesB) to 40.0% (Stack); and for total protein (PROTt) from 5.7% (BayesB) to 22.9% (Stack). Using a subset of top SNPs (1.5k) selected from the GBM approach improved the accuracy for GBLUP from 1.8 to 76.5%. However, for the other models reductions in prediction accuracy of 4.8% for ENET (average of 10 traits), 5.9% for GBM (average of 21 traits), and 6.6% for Stack (average of 16 traits) were observed. Conclusions Our results indicate that the Stack approach was more accurate in predicting metabolic disturbances than GBLUP, BayesB, ENET, and GBM and seemed to be competitive for predicting complex phenotypes with various degrees of mode of inheritance, i.e. additive and non-additive effects. Selecting markers based on GBM improved accuracy of GBLUP.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%