ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2009
A comparison of five methods to predict genomic breeding values of dairy bulls from genome-wide SNP markers.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 74 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
74 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic prediction with NetGP based on gene network and multi-omics data in plants.Plant biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Exploiting historical agronomic data to develop genomic prediction strategies for early clonal selection in the Louisiana sugarcane variety development program.The plant genome · 2025Article
- Hybrid Prediction in Horticulture Crop Breeding: Progress and Challenges.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Supervised Machine Learning Techniques for Breeding Value Prediction in Horses: An Example Using Gait Visual Scores.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Combining phenotypic and genomic data to improve prediction of binary traits.Journal of applied statistics · 2024Article
- (Quasi) multitask support vector regression with heuristic hyperparameter optimization for whole-genome prediction of complex traits: a case study with carcass traits in broilers.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Article
- Dimensionality of genomic information and its impact on genome-wide associations and variant selection for genomic prediction: a simulation study.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Association of Phenotypic Markers of Heat Tolerance with Australian Genomic Estimated Breeding Values and Dairy Cattle Selection Indices.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- First large-scale genomic prediction in the honey bee.Heredity · 2023Article
- Oracle selection provides insight into how far off practice is from Utopia in plant breeding.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Genome-wide association mapping and genomic prediction of agronomical traits and breeding values in Iranian wheat under rain-fed and well-watered conditions.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Comparison of artificial intelligence algorithms and their ranking for the prediction of genetic merit in sheep.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Sparse bayesian learning for genomic selection in yeast.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Evaluating dimensionality reduction for genomic prediction.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Prediction of Hanwoo Cattle Phenotypes from Genotypes Using Machine Learning Methods.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- A Bayesian linear mixed model for prediction of complex traits.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Comparison of Genomic Prediction Methods for Yellow, Stem, and Leaf Rust Resistance in Wheat Landraces from Afghanistan.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Genome wide association study and genomic prediction for stover quality traits in tropical maize (Zea mays L.).Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Climate-Resilient Dairy Cattle Production: Applications of Genomic Tools and Statistical Models.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2021Review
- Feature Selection Stability and Accuracy of Prediction Models for Genomic Prediction of Residual Feed Intake in Pigs Using Machine Learning.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
14 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenomic selection (GS) uses molecular breeding values (MBV) derived from dense markers across the entire genome for selection of young animals. The accuracy of MBV prediction is important for a successful application of GS. Recently, several methods have been proposed to estimate MBV. Initial simulation studies have shown that these methods can accurately predict MBV. In this study we compared the accuracies and possible bias of five different regression methods in an empirical application in dairy cattle.
methodsGenotypes of 7,372 SNP and highly accurate EBV of 1,945 dairy bulls were used to predict MBV for protein percentage (PPT) and a profit index (Australian Selection Index, ASI). Marker effects were estimated by least squares regression (FR-LS), Bayesian regression (Bayes-R), random regression best linear unbiased prediction (RR-BLUP), partial least squares regression (PLSR) and nonparametric support vector regression (SVR) in a training set of 1,239 bulls. Accuracy and bias of MBV prediction were calculated from cross-validation of the training set and tested against a test team of 706 young bulls.
resultsFor both traits, FR-LS using a subset of SNP was significantly less accurate than all other methods which used all SNP. Accuracies obtained by Bayes-R, RR-BLUP, PLSR and SVR were very similar for ASI (0.39-0.45) and for PPT (0.55-0.61). Overall, SVR gave the highest accuracy.All methods resulted in biased MBV predictions for ASI, for PPT only RR-BLUP and SVR predictions were unbiased. A significant decrease in accuracy of prediction of ASI was seen in young test cohorts of bulls compared to the accuracy derived from cross-validation of the training set. This reduction was not apparent for PPT. Combining MBV predictions with pedigree based predictions gave 1.05 - 1.34 times higher accuracies compared to predictions based on pedigree alone. Some methods have largely different computational requirements, with PLSR and RR-BLUP requiring the least computing time.
conclusionsThe four methods which use information from all SNP namely RR-BLUP, Bayes-R, PLSR and SVR generate similar accuracies of MBV prediction for genomic selection, and their use in the selection of immediate future generations in dairy cattle will be comparable. The use of FR-LS in genomic selection is not recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.