No abstract

Highlights d Representative sequencing (Rep-Seq) is a new method for tumor molecular profiling d Rep-Seq homogenizes residual tumor tissue not taken for standard pathology d Representative sampling of tumors generates accurate tumor mutation burden scores d Rep-Seq detects more mutations and accurately resolves clonal from subclonal variants

No abstract

CLINICAL examination of the abdomen in adult cattle can be daunting due to the fractious nature of infrequently handled animals and the lack of adequate restraint facilities on some farms. For many veterinary surgeons, cattle have become an unfamiliar species which are only examined periodically. The range of abdominal conditions which may occur in cattle is challenging and a careful cost-benefit analysis is required before an investigative or treatment protocol in embarked upon. Nevertheless, much can be achieved by using a methodical approach and many conditions may be successfully (and dramatically) treated if the correct diagnosis is achieved. This article describes how to conduct a systematic clinical examination of the bovine abdomen and outlines the abnormalities which may be found. In particular, it considers the observation and examination of the patient and any further diagnostic investigations which may be useful. Where appropriate, specific conditions are used to illustrate the abnormalities which may be present. The urogenital system is not covered.

Cows in a 250-cow Holstein-Friesian herd were allocated at random to be treated with either a homoeopathic nosode or a negative control, both treatments being applied by means of an aerosol spray to the vulval mucous membranes. A total of six treatments were given over a period of three days and milk samples were taken for the determination of somatic cell counts (SCC) on days -3, 3, 7, 9, 14, 21 and 28. Individuals applying the treatments or carrying out the SCC determination were unaware of which animals were receiving which treatment. Owing to the wide natural variations in SCC, the trial had only a 71 per cent possibility of detecting a 30 per cent difference in SCC between the two groups. There were no significant differences between the SCC of the two groups on any sample day, but there were significant variations between the SCC on different days (P=0.003) in both groups.