Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21703021›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2011

Allele coding in genomic evaluation.

Ismo Strandén, Ole F Christensen

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Current status of genomic evaluation.Journal of animal science · 2020
    Review
  13. Genomic Prediction of Columnaris Disease Resistance in Catfish.Marine biotechnology (New York, N.Y.) · 2020
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Statistical methods for SNP heritability estimation and partition: A review.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Modeling copy number variation in the genomic prediction of maize hybrids.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Estimates of genetic trend for single-step genomic evaluations.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018
    Article
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

2 authors.

Ismo StrandénBiotechnology and Food Research, MTT Agrifood Research Finland, FI-31600 Jokioinen, Finland. ismo.stranden@mtt.fi
Ole F Christensen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic data are used in animal breeding to assist genetic evaluation. Several models to estimate genomic breeding values have been studied. In general, two approaches have been used. One approach estimates the marker effects first and then, genomic breeding values are obtained by summing marker effects. In the second approach, genomic breeding values are estimated directly using an equivalent model with a genomic relationship matrix. Allele coding is the method chosen to assign values to the regression coefficients in the statistical model. A common allele coding is zero for the homozygous genotype of the first allele, one for the heterozygote, and two for the homozygous genotype for the other allele. Another common allele coding changes these regression coefficients by subtracting a value from each marker such that the mean of regression coefficients is zero within each marker. We call this centered allele coding. This study considered effects of different allele coding methods on inference. Both marker-based and equivalent models were considered, and restricted maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods were used in inference.

resultsTheoretical derivations showed that parameter estimates and estimated marker effects in marker-based models are the same irrespective of the allele coding, provided that the model has a fixed general mean. For the equivalent models, the same results hold, even though different allele coding methods lead to different genomic relationship matrices. Calculated genomic breeding values are independent of allele coding when the estimate of the general mean is included into the values. Reliabilities of estimated genomic breeding values calculated using elements of the inverse of the coefficient matrix depend on the allele coding because different allele coding methods imply different models. Finally, allele coding affects the mixing of Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithms, with the centered coding being the best.

conclusionsDifferent allele coding methods lead to the same inference in the marker-based and equivalent models when a fixed general mean is included in the model. However, reliabilities of genomic breeding values are affected by the allele coding method used. The centered coding has some numerical advantages when Markov chain Monte Carlo methods are used.

Indexed as

AllelesModels, GeneticAnimalsBayes TheoremBreedingCodonFemaleGenetic MarkersGenomeGenomicsMaleCodonGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID21703021
PMCPMC3154140

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.