Comparison of two bovine serum pregnancy tests in detection of artificial insemination pregnancies and pregnancy loss in beef cattle.

Blood tests for early detection of pregnancy in cattle based on pregnancy-associated glycoproteins (PAGs) are commercially available. The objective of these studies were to compare the accuracy of blood tests to transrectal ultrasonography in detecting AI pregnancies, and to compare the accuracy of...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Emmalee J Northrop, Jerica J J Rich, Jim R Rhoades, George A Perry
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2019-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211179
id doaj-1c797b515d0f4a63b67d8de96be2b91e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1c797b515d0f4a63b67d8de96be2b91e2021-03-03T20:57:04ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032019-01-01141e021117910.1371/journal.pone.0211179Comparison of two bovine serum pregnancy tests in detection of artificial insemination pregnancies and pregnancy loss in beef cattle.Emmalee J NorthropJerica J J RichJim R RhoadesGeorge A PerryBlood tests for early detection of pregnancy in cattle based on pregnancy-associated glycoproteins (PAGs) are commercially available. The objective of these studies were to compare the accuracy of blood tests to transrectal ultrasonography in detecting AI pregnancies, and to compare the accuracy of blood tests in predicting pregnancy loss. Beef cattle from 6 herds were synchronized using a recommended CIDR based protocol (Study 1: n = 460; Study 2: n = 472). Pregnancy status was determined by transrectal ultrasonography between days 28-40 following AI, blood samples were collected at this time. In study 2 a final pregnancy determination was performed at the end of the breeding season to determine pregnancy loss. Each serum sample was examined for PAG concentrations using a microtiter plate reader and/or scored by two technicians blind to pregnancy status and pregnancy loss. For study 1 Cohen's kappa statistics were calculated to assess the agreement between each test and transrectal ultrasonography. For study 2 data was analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS with herd as a random effect, and loss, age, and their interaction included in the model. Agreement was good to very good for each test. There was no difference (P = 0.79) in sensitivity, but a difference (P<0.01) in specificity of the assays (88%, 64%, 87%, 90%) and in the overall percent correct (93%, 84%, 93%, 93%). There was an effect of pregnancy loss (P = 0.04), age (P = 0.0002), and their interaction (P = 0.06) on PAG concentrations. In conclusion both pregnancy tests were accurate at detecting AI pregnancies, and were in very good agreement with transrectal ultrasonography. Both tests detected differences in PAGs among females that maintained and lost pregnancy; however, prediction proved to be difficult as most females were above the threshold and would have been considered pregnant on the day of testing.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211179
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Emmalee J Northrop
Jerica J J Rich
Jim R Rhoades
George A Perry
spellingShingle Emmalee J Northrop
Jerica J J Rich
Jim R Rhoades
George A Perry
Comparison of two bovine serum pregnancy tests in detection of artificial insemination pregnancies and pregnancy loss in beef cattle.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Emmalee J Northrop
Jerica J J Rich
Jim R Rhoades
George A Perry
author_sort Emmalee J Northrop
title Comparison of two bovine serum pregnancy tests in detection of artificial insemination pregnancies and pregnancy loss in beef cattle.
title_short Comparison of two bovine serum pregnancy tests in detection of artificial insemination pregnancies and pregnancy loss in beef cattle.
title_full Comparison of two bovine serum pregnancy tests in detection of artificial insemination pregnancies and pregnancy loss in beef cattle.
title_fullStr Comparison of two bovine serum pregnancy tests in detection of artificial insemination pregnancies and pregnancy loss in beef cattle.
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two bovine serum pregnancy tests in detection of artificial insemination pregnancies and pregnancy loss in beef cattle.
title_sort comparison of two bovine serum pregnancy tests in detection of artificial insemination pregnancies and pregnancy loss in beef cattle.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2019-01-01
description Blood tests for early detection of pregnancy in cattle based on pregnancy-associated glycoproteins (PAGs) are commercially available. The objective of these studies were to compare the accuracy of blood tests to transrectal ultrasonography in detecting AI pregnancies, and to compare the accuracy of blood tests in predicting pregnancy loss. Beef cattle from 6 herds were synchronized using a recommended CIDR based protocol (Study 1: n = 460; Study 2: n = 472). Pregnancy status was determined by transrectal ultrasonography between days 28-40 following AI, blood samples were collected at this time. In study 2 a final pregnancy determination was performed at the end of the breeding season to determine pregnancy loss. Each serum sample was examined for PAG concentrations using a microtiter plate reader and/or scored by two technicians blind to pregnancy status and pregnancy loss. For study 1 Cohen's kappa statistics were calculated to assess the agreement between each test and transrectal ultrasonography. For study 2 data was analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS with herd as a random effect, and loss, age, and their interaction included in the model. Agreement was good to very good for each test. There was no difference (P = 0.79) in sensitivity, but a difference (P<0.01) in specificity of the assays (88%, 64%, 87%, 90%) and in the overall percent correct (93%, 84%, 93%, 93%). There was an effect of pregnancy loss (P = 0.04), age (P = 0.0002), and their interaction (P = 0.06) on PAG concentrations. In conclusion both pregnancy tests were accurate at detecting AI pregnancies, and were in very good agreement with transrectal ultrasonography. Both tests detected differences in PAGs among females that maintained and lost pregnancy; however, prediction proved to be difficult as most females were above the threshold and would have been considered pregnant on the day of testing.
url https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211179
work_keys_str_mv AT emmaleejnorthrop comparisonoftwobovineserumpregnancytestsindetectionofartificialinseminationpregnanciesandpregnancylossinbeefcattle
AT jericajjrich comparisonoftwobovineserumpregnancytestsindetectionofartificialinseminationpregnanciesandpregnancylossinbeefcattle
AT jimrrhoades comparisonoftwobovineserumpregnancytestsindetectionofartificialinseminationpregnanciesandpregnancylossinbeefcattle
AT georgeaperry comparisonoftwobovineserumpregnancytestsindetectionofartificialinseminationpregnanciesandpregnancylossinbeefcattle
_version_ 1714819609853427712