Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20170500›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2010

The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle.

David Habier, Jens Tetens, Franz-Reinhold Seefried, Peter Lichtner, Georg Thaller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 197 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
197citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

197 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Better Multi-Breed Genomic Predictions for Tropical Bull Fertility Using a Breed-Adjusted Genomic Relationship Matrix.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. AdaptiveGS: an explainable genomic selection framework based on adaptive stacking ensemble machine learning.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Optimization of sparse phenotyping strategy in multi-environmental trials in maize.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

137 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

David HabierInstitute of Animal Breeding and Husbandry, Christian-Albrechts University of Kiel, Olshausenstrasse 40, 24098 Kiel, Germany. dhabier@gmail.com
Jens Tetens
Franz-Reinhold Seefried
Peter Lichtner
Georg Thaller

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe impact of additive-genetic relationships captured by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on the accuracy of genomic breeding values (GEBVs) has been demonstrated, but recent studies on data obtained from Holstein populations have ignored this fact. However, this impact and the accuracy of GEBVs due to linkage disequilibrium (LD), which is fairly persistent over generations, must be known to implement future breeding programs. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe data set used to investigate these questions consisted of 3,863 German Holstein bulls genotyped for 54,001 SNPs, their pedigree and daughter yield deviations for milk yield, fat yield, protein yield and somatic cell score. A cross-validation methodology was applied, where the maximum additive-genetic relationship (amax) between bulls in training and validation was controlled. GEBVs were estimated by a Bayesian model averaging approach (BayesB) and an animal model using the genomic relationship matrix (G-BLUP). The accuracy of GEBVs due to LD was estimated by a regression approach using accuracy of GEBVs and accuracy of pedigree-based BLUP-EBVs.

resultsAccuracy of GEBVs obtained by both BayesB and G-BLUP decreased with decreasing amax for all traits analyzed. The decay of accuracy tended to be larger for G-BLUP and with smaller training size. Differences between BayesB and G-BLUP became evident for the accuracy due to LD, where BayesB clearly outperformed G-BLUP with increasing training size.

conclusionsGEBV accuracy of current selection candidates varies due to different additive-genetic relationships relative to the training data. Accuracy of future candidates can be lower than reported in previous studies because information from close relatives will not be available when selection on GEBVs is applied. A Bayesian model averaging approach exploits LD information considerably better than G-BLUP and thus is the most promising method. Cross-validations should account for family structure in the data to allow for long-lasting genomic based breeding plans in animal and plant breeding.

Indexed as

BreedingModels, GeneticAnimalsCattleFemaleGenotypeGermanyLinkage DisequilibriumMaleModels, StatisticalPedigreePhenotypePolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID20170500
PMCPMC2838754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.