Genomic prediction for tuberculosis resistance in dairy cattle

Background: The increasing prevalence of bovine tuberculosis (bTB) in the UK and the limitations of the currently available diagnostic and control methods require the development of complementary approaches to assist in the sustainable control of the disease. One potential approach is the identification of animals that are genetically more resistant to bTB, to enable breeding of animals with enhanced resistance. This paper focuses on prediction of resistance to bTB. We explore estimation of direct genomic estimated breeding values (DGVs) for bTB resistance in UK dairy cattle, using dense SNP chip data, and test these genomic predictions for situations when disease phenotypes are not available on selection candidates. Methodology/Principal Findings: We estimated DGVs using genomic best linear unbiased prediction methodology, and assessed their predictive accuracies with a cross validation procedure and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves. Furthermore, these results were compared with theoretical expectations for prediction accuracy and area-under-the-ROC- curve (AUC). The dataset comprised 1151 Holstein-Friesian cows (bTB cases or controls). All individuals (592 cases and 559 controls) were genotyped for 727,252 loci (Illumina Bead Chip). The estimated observed heritability of bTB resistance was 0.23±0.06 (0.34 on the liability scale) and five-fold cross validation, replicated six times, provided a prediction accuracy of 0.33 (95% C.I.: 0.26, 0.40). ROC curves, and the resulting AUC, gave a probability of 0.58, averaged across six replicates, of correctly classifying cows as diseased or as healthy based on SNP chip genotype alone using these data. Conclusions/Significance: These results provide a first step in the investigation of the potential feasibility of genomic selection for bTB resistance using SNP data. Specifically, they demonstrate that genomic selection is possible, even in populations with no pedigree data and on animals lacking bTB phenotypes. However, a larger training population will be required to improve prediction accuracies. © 2014 Tsairidou et al.

Regulating Genetically Modified Organisms in Ireland – Laissez faire approach?

This chapter examines the legal framework applicable to genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in Ireland, bearing in mind the limited presence of GMOs. As a member of the European Union (EU), a specific, process-based regime applies regarding the authorisation and regulation of GMOs. This is intended to ensure a high level of environmental and human health protection and also enable producer and consumer choice. This regime is highly harmonized, but allows some flexibility regarding its implementation and, soon, the potential to opt-out from cultivation in part or entirely. Although, Ireland has only legislated on the area to the extent and in the manner required by the EU, it may avail of the opt-out in future – understandable in light of the lack of any cultivation currently and the green image of Ireland.
Complementary horizontal legislation and common law principles, relevant to labelling and varying forms of liability, deal with most issues that might arise quite comprehensively. However, they are quite complicated, overlapping and untailored and it is worth considering whether specific legislation should be developed to deal with liability related to GMOs.
Overall, Ireland holds varying stances to different forms of GMOs, with the greatest acceptance and use of GM-feed for pragmatic reasons. It has not developed a specific Irish approach, copy-pasting EU legislation and relying upon existing law to deal with any issues. This is understandable in light of the high level of harmonization and limited presence of GMOs in Ireland, but nonetheless will need to be developed as the availability of GMOs increases.

Sports Law

The term sports law is fourfold in nature and encompasses: (a) traditional areas of law, such as contract, tort, criminal, administrative and EU law, as applied to disputes of a sporting origin; (b) the particular impact that a range of statutory provisions might have on sport; for example, legislation governing discriminatory and unsafe practices in a workplace or monopolistic or fraudulent behaviour in an industry; (c) issues of public and social policy otherwise influencing the legislature and the courts, from the allocation of resources to the allocation of risk; and (d) lex sportiva, where that term is taken to reflect the various internal administrative regulations and awards by dispute-resolving mechanisms in sport. As a matter of practice, sports law tends to be concerned with the application of contract and commercial law principles to professional sport - and namely the application of such branches of law to disputes relating to the following "three pillars" of modern, professional sport i.e., disputes relating to the payment, sponsorship or endorsement of those who play sport for a living; disputes arising from decisions made by sports governing bodies; and disputes arising from the application of law to the holding of sports events.

Professional Negligence, Solicitors: Recent Case Law, 2014

In preparation for this talk I have reviewed cases of interest in the High Courts and Courts of Appeal of England and Wales and Northern Ireland from the past two years or so on professional negligence and liability and principally relating to solicitors.

There are six topics of interest: the general duty of care demanded of solicitors in the carrying out of their professional obligations; whether there is a specific duty on a solicitor to warn or advise a client of any implied risk in, say, a commercial transaction; what is the scope of the duty on a solicitor to explain the content of or clauses in a legal document; a recent case of interest applying the White v Jones principle to a disappointed beneficiary seeking to make a claim against a solicitor who negligently prepared a will; the practical, limitation issue of how to pinpoint in a professional negligence claim when the damage was first sustained by the claimant; and finally some case law here and in England and Wales on the (costs) implications for solicitors relating to any failure to adhere to case management protocols or related court directions.

Sporting Justice: An Arbitrator's Perspective

Drawing on my experience of a number of sports dispute resolution tribunals in the UK and Ireland (such as Sports Resolutions UK; Just Sport Ireland; the Football Association of Ireland’s Disciplinary Panel and the Gaelic Athletic Association’s Dispute Resolution Authority) I intend to use this paper to review the legal arguments typically made in sports-related arbitrations. These points of interest can be summarised as a series of three questions: the fairness question; the liability question; the penalty question.

In answer to the fairness question, the aim is to give a brief outline on best practice in establishing a "fair" sports disciplinary tribunal. The answer, I believe, is always twofold in nature: first, and to paraphrase Lord Steyn in R v Secretary of State For The Home Department, Ex Parte Daly [2001] UKHL 26 at [28] "in law, context is everything" – translated into the present matter, this means that in sports disciplinary cases, the more serious the charges against the individual (in terms of reputational damage, economic impact and/or length of sanction); the more tightly wrapped the procedural safeguards surrounding any subsequent disciplinary hearing must be. A fair disciplinary system will be discussed in the context of the principles laid down in Article 8 of the World Anti-Doping Code which, in effect, acts as sport’s Article 6 of the ECHR on a right to a fair trial.

Following on from the above, in the 60 or so sports arbitrations that I have heard, there are two further points of interest. First, the claim before the arbitral panel will often be framed in an argument that, for various reasons of substantive and procedural irregularity, the sanction imposed on the appellant should be quashed ("the liability"). Second, and in alternative, that the sanction imposed was wholly disproportionate ("the penalty").

The liability issue usually breaks down into two further questions. First, what is the nature of the legal duty upon a sports body in exercising its disciplinary remit? Second, to what extent does a de novo hearing on appeal cure any apparent defects in a hearing of first instance? The first issue often results in an arbitral panel debating the contra preferentum approach to the interpretation of a contested rule i.e., the sports body’s rules in question are so ambiguous that they should be interpreted in a manner to the detriment of the rule maker and in favour of the appellant. On the second matter, it now appears to be a general principle of sports law, administrative law and even human rights law that even if a violation of the principles of natural justice takes place at the first instance stage of a disciplinary process, they may be cured on de novo appeal. Authority for this approach can be found at the Court of Arbitration for Sport and in particular in CAS 2009/A/1920 FK Pobeda, Aleksandar Zabrcanec, Nikolce Zdraveski v UEFA at para 87.

The question on proportionality asks what, aside from precedent found within the decisions of the sports body in question, are the general legal principles against which a sanction by a sports disciplinary body can be benchmarked in order to ascertain whether it is disproportionate in length or even irrational in nature?

On the matter of (dis)proportionality of sanction, the debate is usually guided by the authority in Bradley v the Jockey Club [2004] EWHC 2164 (QB) and affirmed at [2005] EWCA Civ 1056. The Bradley principles on proportionality of sports-specific sanctions, recently cited with approval at the Court of Arbitration for Sport, will be examined in this presentation.

Finally, an interesting application of many of the above principles (and others such as the appropriate standard of proof in sports disciplinary procedures) can be made to recent match-fixing or corruption related hearings held by the British Horse Racing Authority, the integrity units of snooker and tennis, and at the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

Holding Shareholders to Account: British Banking Stability and Contingent Capital

This chapter seeks to explain the relative stability of the British banking system in terms of its capital structure. From 1826 joint-stock banking was allowed, but shareholder liability was jointly and severally unlimited. Limited liability banks were allowed from 1857–8, but these banks issued partly paid shares with an obligation on shareholders to subscribe for uncalled capital. Contingent capital meant that shareholders and managers would suffer losses in the event of failure and this discouraged risk shifting at the expense of note-holders and depositors. Although individual banks collapsed, the failure rate of banks (in terms of number or capital) did not reach a critical level—10 per cent—beyond which the payments system might have been threatened. This chapter argues that agency problems and systemic risk rose after the abolition of contingent share capital in 1958 and the deregulation of the banking sector in the 1970s.

Additionality of Incubator Support on Networks of University Spin-Out Firms

The formation rate of university spin-out firms has increased markedly over the past decade. While this is seen as an important channel for the commercialisation of academic research, concerns have centred around high failure rates and no-to-low growth among those which survive compared to other new technology based firms. Universities have responded to this by investing in incubators to assist spin-outs to overcome their liability of newness. Yet how effective are incubators in supporting these firms? Here we examine this in terms of the structural networks that spin-out firms form, the role of the incubator in this and the effect of this on the spin-out process.

The extracellular vesicles of the helminth pathogen, Fasciola hepatica: biogenesis pathways and cargo molecules involved in parasite pathogenesis.

Extracellular vesicles (EVs) released by parasites have important roles in establishing and maintaining infection. Analysis of the soluble and vesicular secretions of adult Fasciola hepatica has established a definitive characterisation of the total secretome of this zoonotic parasite. Fasciola secretes at least two sub-populations of EVs that differ according to size, cargo molecules and site of release from the parasite. The larger EVs are released from the specialised cells that line the parasite gastrodermus and contain the zymogen of the 37 kDa cathepsin L peptidase that performs a digestive function. The smaller exosome-like vesicle population originate from multivesicular bodies within the tegumental syncytium and carry many previously described immunomodulatory molecules that could be delivered into host cells. By integrating our proteomics data with recently available transcriptomic datasets we have detailed the pathways involved with EV biogenesis in F. hepatica and propose that the small exosome biogenesis occurs via ESCRT-dependent MVB formation in the tegumental syncytium before being shed from the apical plasma membrane. Furthermore, we found that the molecular machinery required for EV biogenesis is constitutively expressed across the intra-mammalian development stages of the parasite. By contrast, the cargo molecules packaged within the EVs are developmentally regulated, most likely to facilitate the parasites migration through host tissue and to counteract host immune attack.

Regulating Digital Financial Services Agents in Developing Countries to Promote Financial Inclusion

Limited access to bank branches excludes over one billion people from accessing financial services in developing countries. Digital financial services offered by banks and mobile money providers through agents can solve this problem without the need for complex and costly physical banking infrastructures. Delivering digital financial services through agents requires a legal framework to regulate liability. This article analyses whether vicarious liability of the principal is a more efficient regulatory approach than personal liability of the agent. Agent liability in Kenya, Fiji, and Malawi is analysed to demonstrate that vicarious liability of the principal, coupled to an explicit agreement as to agent rewards and penalties, is the more efficient regulatory approach.