4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

A life with horses: It's been a great ride!

期刊

VETERINARY IMMUNOLOGY AND IMMUNOPATHOLOGY
卷 148, 期 1-2, 页码 6-11

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.vetimm.2012.05.015

关键词

Horse; Immunology; MHC; Pregnancy; Antibody; T cells

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In 2010 Doug Antczak was the recipient of the Distinguished Veterinary Immunologist Award of the Veterinary Immunology Committee of the International Union of Immunological Societies. Dr. Antczak is the Dorothy Havemeyer McConville Professor of Equine Medicine at the Baker Institute for Animal Health in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University. His research focuses on immunological and genetic aspects of the fetal-maternal relationship in the horse. This includes studies of major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes and molecules, the regulation of their expression in the placenta, the composition and function of uterine lymphocytes, and alterations in maternal immune reactivity during pregnancy. For this research Dr. Antczak developed a herd of purpose-bred horses selected for homozygosity at the MHC. These horses are a unique genetic resource in equine immunology. During his career Dr. Antczak has mentored over 20 graduate students and post-doctoral fellows, many of whom have gone on to independent careers in immunology research. Dr. Antczak has made contributions to equine immunology, genetics, and reproduction, and collaborated widely with scientists in each of these disciplines. Through his relationship with the Havemeyer Foundation, Dr. Antczak has been a catalyst for cooperative research through a series of Havemeyer Foundation Workshops initiated over 25 years ago. Since 1995 he has been a principal participant in the international Horse Genome Project collaboration furthering his equine immunology research through genomic applications. In 2009 Dr. Antczak was inducted into the University of Kentucky's Equine Research Hall of Fame. (c) 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据