ライフサイエンスコーパス: badger

1 sion of experimentally induced TB in captive badgers.

2 e in the prevalence of M. bovis infection in badgers.

3 of infection cheaply and without destroying badgers.

4 diagnosing M. bovis infection in cattle and badgers.

5 rs and cattle, as well as naturally infected badgers.

6 n epidemic involving two species, cattle and badgers.

7 size in England and Wales was 6.74 (+/-0.63) badgers.

8 se of vaccination to reduce bTB infection in badgers.

9 urvival and population abundance benefits in badgers.

10 bation increases, the spread of infection in badgers.

11 nonymous FTP from ftp://ftp.sanger.ac.uk/pub/badger/.

12 provides an Fe-O stretching frequency of nu(Badger) = 563 cm(-1).

13 we estimate there are approximately 485,000 badgers (95% confidence intervals 391,000-581,000) in En

14 Here we present Badger, a lightweight and easy-to-install genome explora

15 nited Kingdom legislation (The Protection of Badgers Act 1992).

16 esonance phenomenon originally identified by Badger and Brocklehurst lies at the core of the basic un

17 (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand, the badger and its sett are protected under United Kingdom l

18 neficial effect of vaccination in individual badgers and an indirect protective effect in unvaccinate

19 ture, amid debate over the relative roles of badgers and cattle in disease transmission.

20 e obtained from both experimentally infected badgers and cattle, as well as naturally infected badger

21 for contact and disease transmission between badgers and cattle.

22 tion), which can increase transmission among badgers and from badgers to cattle.

23 ble for a proportion of transmission amongst badgers and onwards to cattle.

24 un and transient effect on cattle of culling badgers and the effect of a period without routine testi

25 wildlife reservoir (principally the Eurasian Badger) and/or from cattle purchased from infected areas

26 ights in the home ranges of contact-collared badgers, and 5380 collar-nights in the home ranges of GP

27 ts of management strategies to reduce bTB in badgers, and thereby reduce cattle herd incidence.

28 mong the fauna are a new species of Eurasian badger (Arctomeles dimolodontus) and the largest concent

29 first North American occurrence of a meline badger (Arctomeles).

30 However, badgers are also known to be killed illegally.

31 ity populations in the United Kingdom, where badgers are atypical in their behaviour, physiology, eco

32 Badgers are protected in Wisconsin owing to an overall l

33 Mitigating the conflict concerning badgers as a vector of bTB requires cross-disciplinary s

34 infection may be transmitted from cattle to badgers, as well as vice versa.

35 are undermined by culling-induced changes in badger behavior (termed perturbation), which can increas

36 ral scales (preceding month or season), with badgers being heavier if preceding temperatures (particu

37 sed under the GPL and is available at http://badger.bio.ed.ac.uk/.

38 Overall, the mean badger body weight of culled individuals rose during the

39 Using post-mortem badger body weight records from 15 878 individuals captu

40 n this region, we project heavier individual badger body weights in the future.

41 used an established simulation model of the badger-cattle-TB system and investigated four proposed s

42 hile controlling for local abundance (unique badgers caught/sett/year).

43 n addition, we show the risk of unvaccinated badger cubs, but not adults, testing positive to an even

44 Large-scale badger culling can reduce the incidence of confirmed cat

45 Recently, badger culling has attracted controversy because experim

46 -scale field trials have recently shown that badger culling has the capacity to cause both increases

47 Badger culling has therefore been a component of British

48 Here, we show that repeated badger culling in the same area is associated with incre

49 Ongoing illegal badger culling is likewise expected to increase cattle T

50 ale field trial that indicate that localized badger culling not only fails to control but also seems

51 d incidents might be expected over 10 years, badger culling prevented 26 cattle herd incidents while

52 no badger management, large-scale proactive badger culling, badger vaccination, and culling with a r

53 We conducted a survey of badger dens (main setts) in 1614 1 km squares across Eng

54 l across different temporal scales, although badgers did exhibit heavier weights when greater rainfal

55 We present well-supported evidence that badgers disperse much further in the low-density contine

56 fecundity, recruitment and survival rates in badgers, due to improved food availability and energetic

57 n measures were 100% effective in preventing badger entry into farm buildings, as long as they were a

58 creasing prevalence of M. bovis infection in badgers, especially where landscape features allow badge

59 Badger exclusion measures included sheet metal gates, ad

60 Badgers exhibit a slow life-history strategy, having hig

61 ociated with four metrics of perturbation in badgers: expanded ranging, more frequent immigration, lo

62 rimarily of bovine origin, but isolates from badgers, feral deer, sheep, humans, and a pig were inclu

63 vel approach that entails testing individual badgers for infection, vaccinating test-negative animals

64 s, especially where landscape features allow badgers from neighboring land to recolonize culled areas

65 us attempts to manage the disease by culling badgers have been hampered by social perturbation, which

66 Badgers have been implicated in the transmission and mai

67 Despite the importance of badgers in bTB and the well-documented role for macropha

68 ributed to the genetic variation observed in badgers in Europe today.

69 e, BCI was the principal driver of TE, where badgers in good condition were less likely to be trapped

70 representing both responsive persecution of badgers in high cattle risk areas and effects of persecu

71 RRT estimated that 10.4% of farmers killed badgers in the 12 months preceding the study.

72 to leave some infected and some susceptible badgers in the population.

73 ther could impact government-led trapping of badgers in the UK, in relation to TB management.

74 In this study, we genotyped 233 American badgers in Wisconsin at 12 microsatellite loci to identi

75 o make NO after stimulation with recombinant badger interferon gamma (bdIFNgamma) or a combination of

76 The European badger is recognised as a wildlife reservoir for bovine

77 Badger is released under the GPL and is available at htt

78 Therefore, an accurate in vitro test for badgers is needed urgently to determine the extent of th

79 and implicit associations relate to farmers' badger killing behavior reported via RRT.

80 ation test (BIAT)) for investigating illegal badger killing by livestock farmers across Wales.

81 The extent of illegal badger killing is currently unknown.

82 ndicates that badger-to-cattle and cattle-to-badger M. bovis transmission may typically occur through

83 phages as anti-mycobacterial effector cells, badger macrophage (bdMphi) responses remain uncharacteri

84 980s, 1990s and 2011-13, using the number of badger main setts as a proxy for the abundance of badger

85 oposed strategies: business as usual with no badger management, large-scale proactive badger culling,

86 The distinctive social position of infected badgers may help explain how social stability mitigates,

87 In the United Kingdom, European badgers Meles meles are a protected species and an impor

88 tructured by sex in a population of European badgers Meles meles naturally infected with Mycobacteriu

89 Using long-term data on a badger (Meles meles Linnaeus, 1758) population naturally

90 Dispersal in the Eurasian badger (Meles meles) is believed to be very limited, wit

91 The European badger (Meles meles) is considered an important vector i

92 The European badger (Meles meles) is implicated as a wildlife reservo

93 The European badger (Meles meles) is implicated as a wildlife reservo

94 The European badger (Meles meles) is of considerable interest in the

95 road-scale genetic structure of the European badger (Meles meles) is of interest as it may result fro

96 The Eurasian badger (Meles meles) is partly responsible for maintenan

97 ulosis (TB) is hindered by infection in wild badger (Meles meles) populations.

98 , and illustrate it with an example based on badger (Meles meles) territoriality.

99 In Britain, European badgers (Meles meles) are implicated in transmitting Myc

100 For three decades, European badgers (Meles meles) have been culled by the British go

101 A study of European badgers (Meles meles) naturally infected with bovine tub

102 An example is given, involving badgers (Meles meles), in which the key factor affecting

103 Culling badgers (Meles meles), the principal wildlife host, resu

104 by the involvement of wildlife, particularly badgers (Meles meles), which appear to sustain endemic i

105 is hindered by persistent infection in wild badgers (Meles meles).

106 d in part to a reservoir of the infection in badgers (Meles meles).

107 t of bovine tuberculosis] between cattle and badgers (Meles meles).

108 te contact patterns of group-living European badgers, Meles meles, which are an important wildlife re

109 This impact on prevalence in badgers might reduce the beneficial effects of culling o

110 Cattle pasture was badgers' most preferred habitat.

111 e life histories on 1179 individual European badgers over 3288 (re-) trapping events, to test whether

112 ject the hypothesis that culling up to three badgers per social group might avoid perturbation, we al

113 Average badger persecution was associated with reduced cattle bT

114 edict that climate change could increase the badger population across the Republic of Ireland.

115 ildlife host, results in perturbation of the badger population and an increased level of disease in c

116 otes the persistence of a naturally infected badger population and helps to explain the badger's role

117 identify potential infection hotspots in the badger population and quantify the heterogeneity in bact

118 al prevalence of bTB in the Woodchester Park badger population exhibits no straightforward relationsh

119 Since the 1970s, this badger population has been monitored with a systematic m

120 ded period, using empirical data from a wild badger population naturally infected with Mycobacterium

121 are consistent with a marked increase in the badger population of England and Wales since the 1980s.

122 r, direct protective effect of BCG in a wild badger population.

123 al for understanding the social structure of badger populations along with mechanisms vital for under

124 o the epidemiology of bovine tuberculosis in badger populations and inform disease control interventi

125 nderstanding the epidemiology of M. bovis in badger populations is essential for directing control in

126 This method allows M. bovis infections in badger populations to be monitored without trapping and

127 Simultaneous GPS-tracking revealed that badgers preferred land > 50 m from cattle.

128 reject the hypothesis that killing a single badger prompted detectable perturbation.

129 This is a result of a failure of the Badger relationship (the shorter bond is always the stro

130 d badger population and helps to explain the badger's role as a persistent reservoir of M. bovis.

131 A Badger's rule analysis of this distance provides an Fe-O

132 Our results indicate that Badger's rule holds for heme and non-heme oxo and hydrox

133 In efforts to use Badger's rule to estimate the bond distance correspondin

134 pecies we have examined the applicability of Badger's rule to heme and non-heme iron-oxygen bonds.

135 e substantially from the values predicted by Badger's rule, while the short Fe-O bonds obtained from

136 tion measurements are in good agreement with Badger's rule.

137 ths, but the computed force constant follows Badger's rule.

138 Combining these results with the recent Badger Sett Survey of England and Wales, we estimate the

139 terogeneity in bacterial load; with infected badgers shedding between 1 x 10(3)- 4 x 10(5) M. bovis c

140 Highest risks were in areas of high badger social group density and high rates of persecutio

141 d with herd risk than area-level measures of badger social group density, habitat suitability or pers

142 ts of persecution on cattle bTB risk through badger social group disruption.

143 There was considerable variation in badger social group size among Land Class Groups (LCGs),

144 social groups, the estimated mean density of badger social groups in England and Wales was 0.485 km(-

145 rate of increase in the estimated number of badger social groups was 2.6% (2.2-2.9%), equating to an

146 r main setts as a proxy for the abundance of badger social groups, none has combined contemporary dat

147 Using main setts as a proxy for badger social groups, the estimated mean density of badg

148 re has been an increase of 103% (83-123%) in badger social groups, while in Wales there has been litt

149 m the Best Add-On Giving Effective Response (BADGER) study tested the association between baseline bi

150 While there have been three national badger surveys in the 1980s, 1990s and 2011-13, using th

151 increase transmission among badgers and from badgers to cattle.

152 vidence of widespread and frequent visits by badgers to farm buildings during which there is the pote

153 cal disputes on the necessity of controlling badgers to limit the spread of infection.

154 ery infrequent direct contact indicates that badger-to-cattle and cattle-to-badger M. bovis transmiss

155 high bTB prevalence areas of the UK can cull badgers under license.

156 on to cattle is through exposure to infected badger urine and faeces.

157 ement, large-scale proactive badger culling, badger vaccination, and culling with a ring of vaccinati

158 ildings to determine the background level of badger visits experienced by each farm.

159 s can substantially reduce the likelihood of badger visits to buildings and reduce some of the potent

160 Badger visits to farm buildings occurred on 19 of the 32

161 in improving farm biosecurity and preventing badger visits to farm buildings.

162 exclusion measures also reduced the level of badger visits to the rest of the farmyard.

163 -Pak) for detecting tuberculosis in Eurasian badgers was 49% sensitive and 93% specific against cultu

164 ar-nights in the home ranges of GPS-collared badgers, we detected no direct contacts between the two

165 Badgers were also heavier in areas with higher landscape

166 Between 1975 and 1997 over 20,000 badgers were culled as part of British TB control policy

167 We found that TB test-positive badgers were socially isolated from their own groups but

168 nose (EN) to diagnose infection of cattle or badgers with M. bovis, using a serum sample.

169 Stat-Pak may be useful for the detection of badgers with the greatest risk of transmitting disease.