Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34758091›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2021

Comparison between methods for measuring fecal egg count and estimating genetic parameters for gastrointestinal parasite resistance traits in sheep.

Mohammed N Boareki, Flavio S Schenkel, Olivia Willoughby, Aroa Suarez-Vega, Delma Kennedy, Angela Cánovas

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mohammed N BoarekiCentre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Flavio S SchenkelCentre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8700-0633
Olivia WilloughbyCentre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Aroa Suarez-VegaCentre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.
Delma KennedyOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Elora, ON, Canada.
Angela CánovasCentre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0036-0757
University of Guelph · CAMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs · CA

Funding

Kuwait Institute for Scientific ResearchOMAFRA Undergraduate Student Experimental LearningOntario Agri-Food Innovation AllianceOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fecal egg count (FEC) is an indicative measurement for parasite infection in sheep. Different FEC methods may show inconsistent results. Not accounting for inconsistencies can be problematic when integrating measurements from different FEC methods for genetic evaluation. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the difference in means and variances between two fecal egg counting methods used in sheep-the Modified McMaster (LMMR) and the Triple Chamber McMaster (LTCM); to estimate variance components for the two FEC methods, treating them as two different traits; and to integrate FEC data from the two different methods and estimate genetic parameters for FEC and other gastrointestinal parasite resistance traits. Fecal samples were collected from a commercial Rideau-Arcott sheep farm in Ontario. Fecal egg counting was performed using both LMMR and the LTCM methods. Other parasite resistance trait records were collected from the same farm including eye score (FAMACHA), body condition score (BCS), and body weight (WT). The two FEC methods were highly genetically (0.94) and phenotypically (0.88) correlated. However, the mean and variance between the two FEC methods were significantly different (P < 0.0001). Therefore, re-scaling is required prior to integrating data from the different methods. For the multiple trait analysis, data from the two fecal egg counting methods were integrated (LFEC) by using records for the LMMR when available and replacing missing records with re-standardized LTCM records converted to the same mean and variance of LMMR. Heritability estimates were 0.12 ± 0.04, 0.07 ± 0.05, 0.17 ± 0.06, and 0.24 ± 0.07 for LFEC egg count, FAMACHA, BCS, and WT, respectively. The estimated genetic correlations between FEC and the other parasite resistance traits were low and not significant (P > 0.05) for FAMACHA (r = 0.24 ± 0.32) and WT (r = 0.22 ± 0.19), and essentially zero for BCS (r = -0.03 ± 0.25), suggesting little to no benefit of using such traits as indicators for LFEC.

Indexed as

Intestinal Diseases, ParasiticParasitesSheep DiseasesAnimalsFecesParasite Egg CountSheepFAMACHAfecal egg countfecal egg counting methodsgastrointestinal parasite resistancesheep

Identifiers

PMID34758091
PMCPMC8703008
OpenAlexW3214431098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.