| Title |
Differences between horse selection based on two forms of osteochondrosis in fetlock
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Applied Genetics, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13353-018-0437-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
D. Lewczuk, A. Bereznowski, M. Hecold, M. Frąszczak, A. Ruść, A. Korwin-Kossakowska, J. Szyda, S. Kamiński |
| Abstract |
Horses lose potential opportunities because of health problems. Available breeding strategies are not effective enough, probably also because of the different definition used and its genetic usefulness. The aim of the study was to compare the genetic background estimated by the genome-wide association study (GWAS) for osteochondrosis using two different scaling osteochondrosis (OC)/healthy and osteochondrosis dissecans (OCD)/healthy systems for evaluating the disease status of investigated fetlock joints. Two hundred one Warmblood horses trained for performance tests (87 stallions and 114 mares) were phenotyped and genotyped. Four fetlock x-ray images per horse were collected using the RTG Girth HF 80 and Vet Scan ray 3600. The DNA of each horse was genotyped using the BeadChip 70K. To identify SNPs that significantly affect the probability of osteochondrosis, two different methods were applied: the Cochran-Armitage test based on an additive mode of inheritance and logistic regression. The genetic background for osteochondrosis, expressed in the number of SNPs found with significant associations with osteochondrosis, was higher by evaluation in the scale of OCD/healthy horses (16 SNPs on several chromosomes mainly on the ECA1 and ECA10) than OC/healthy (2 SNPs on the ECA15 and one SNP on the ECA10). Detailed definition of osteochondrosis is needed in breeding and in veterinary practice. The genetic background for osteochondrosis and osteochondrosis dissecans seems not the same. Suggestive SNPs could be the candidate markers for osteochondrosis but should be checked on a larger population before usage. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 18 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 28% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 22% |
| Professor | 2 | 11% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 28% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 3 | 17% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 17% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 6% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 4 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 March 2018.
All research outputs
#18,590,133
of 23,026,672 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Applied Genetics
#247
of 395 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#258,274
of 332,332 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Applied Genetics
#8
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,026,672 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 395 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,332 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.