Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, DK8830, Tjele, Denmark; Bioinformatics Research Centre, Aarhus University, C.F. Møllers Allé 8, DK8000, Aarhus, Denmark.
Department of Animal Science, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, DK8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Prev Vet Med. 2020 Jun;179:105006. doi: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2020.105006. Epub 2020 Apr 21.
Blood biomarkers may be used to detect physiological imbalance and potential disease. However, blood sampling is difficult and expensive, and not applicable in commercial settings. Instead, individual milk samples are readily available at low cost, can be sampled easily and analysed instantly. The present observational study sampled blood and milk from 234 Holstein dairy cows from experimental herds in six European countries. The objective was to compare the use of three different sets of milk biomarkers for identification of cows in physiological imbalance and thus at risk of developing metabolic or infectious diseases. Random forests was used to predict body energy balance (EBAL), index for physiological imbalance (PI-index) and three clusters differentiating the metabolic status of cows created on basis of concentrations of plasma glucose, β-hydroxybutyrate (BHB), non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) and serum IGF-1. These three metabolic clusters were interpreted as cows in balance, physiological imbalance and "intermediate cows" with physiological status in between. The three sets of milk biomarkers used for prediction were: milk Fourier transform mid-IR (FT-MIR) spectra, 19 immunoglobulin G (IgG) N-glycans and 8 milk metabolites and enzymes (MME). Blood biomarkers were sampled twice; around 14 days after calving (days in milk (DIM)) and around 35 DIM. MME and FT-MIR were sampled twice weekly 1-50 DIM whereas IgG N-glycan were measured only four times. Performances of EBAL and PI-index predictions were measured by coefficient of determination (R) and root mean squared error (RMSE) from leave-one-cow-out cross-validation (cv). For metabolic clusters, performance was measured by sensitivity, specificity and global accuracy from this cross-validation. Best prediction of PI-index was obtained by MME (R = 0.40 (95 % CI: 0.29-0.50) at 14 DIM and 0.35 (0.23-0.44) at 35 DIM) while FT-MIR showed a better performance than MME for prediction of EBAL (R = 0.28 (0.24-0.33) vs 0.21 (0.18-0.25)). Global accuracies of predicting metabolic clusters from MME and FT-MIR were at the same level ranging from 0.54 (95 % CI: 0.39-0.68) to 0.65 (0.55-0.75) for MME and 0.51 (0.37-0.65) to 0.68 (0.53-0.81) for FT-MIR. R and accuracies were lower for IgG N-glycans. In conclusion, neither EBAL nor PI-index were sufficiently well predicted to be used as a management tool for identification of risk cows. MME and FT-MIR may be used to predict the physiological status of the cows, while the use of IgG N-glycans for prediction still needs development. Nevertheless, accuracies need to be improved and a larger training data set is warranted.
血液生物标志物可用于检测生理失衡和潜在疾病。然而,血液采样既困难又昂贵,并且不适用于商业环境。相比之下,个体牛奶样本易于获得且成本低廉,可以轻松采样并即时分析。本观察性研究从六个欧洲国家的实验牛群中抽取了 234 头荷斯坦奶牛的血液和牛奶样本。目的是比较三种不同的牛奶生物标志物在识别生理失衡奶牛(即处于发生代谢或传染病风险的奶牛)方面的应用。随机森林用于预测体能量平衡(EBAL)、生理失衡指数(PI-index)和根据血浆葡萄糖、β-羟丁酸(BHB)、非酯化脂肪酸(NEFA)和血清 IGF-1 浓度创建的区分奶牛代谢状态的三个聚类。这三个代谢聚类被解释为处于平衡、生理失衡和“中间奶牛”的奶牛,其生理状态处于两者之间。用于预测的三套牛奶生物标志物是:牛奶傅里叶变换中红外(FT-MIR)光谱、19 种免疫球蛋白 G(IgG)N-聚糖和 8 种牛奶代谢物和酶(MME)。血液生物标志物在产后 14 天(泌乳天数(DIM))和产后 35 天左右采集两次。每周两次采集 MME 和 FT-MIR 样本 1-50 DIM,而 IgG N-聚糖仅测量四次。使用留一牛交叉验证(cv)的决定系数(R)和均方根误差(RMSE)来衡量 EBAL 和 PI-index 预测的性能。对于代谢聚类,通过该交叉验证的敏感性、特异性和全局准确性来衡量性能。通过 MME 获得最佳的 PI-index 预测(在 14 DIM 时为 0.40(95%CI:0.29-0.50),在 35 DIM 时为 0.35(0.23-0.44)),而 FT-MIR 对 EBAL 的预测表现优于 MME(R=0.28(0.24-0.33)与 0.21(0.18-0.25))。MME 和 FT-MIR 预测代谢聚类的全局准确性水平相同,范围为 0.54(95%CI:0.39-0.68)至 0.65(0.55-0.75)用于 MME 和 0.51(0.37-0.65)至 0.68(0.53-0.81)用于 FT-MIR。IgG N-聚糖的 R 和准确性较低。总之,EBAL 和 PI-index 都没有足够好的预测结果,不能用作识别风险奶牛的管理工具。MME 和 FT-MIR 可用于预测奶牛的生理状况,而 IgG N-聚糖的预测仍需进一步发展。然而,准确性需要提高,并且需要更大的训练数据集。