Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22862849›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2012

Response to genomic selection: the Bulmer effect and the potential of genomic selection when the number of phenotypic records is limiting.

Elizabeth M Van Grevenhof, Johan A M Van Arendonk, Piter Bijma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Effect of Preselection on the Level of Bias and Accuracy in a Broiler Breeder Population, a Simulation Study.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  4. Genetic Parameter Estimation of Body Weight andAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Simulation studies to optimize genomic selection in honey bees.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021
    Article
  14. Predicting the accuracy of genomic predictions.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021
    Article
  15. Emerging issues in genomic selection.Journal of animal science · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Current status of genomic evaluation.Journal of animal science · 2020
    Review
  20. 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

3 authors.

Elizabeth M Van GrevenhofAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, P,B, 338, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Johan A M Van Arendonk
Piter Bijma

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the last ten years, genomic selection has developed enormously. Simulations and results on real data suggest that breeding values can be predicted with high accuracy using genetic markers alone. However, to reach high accuracies, large reference populations are needed. In many livestock populations or even species, such populations cannot be established when traits are difficult or expensive to record, or when the population size is small. The value of genomic selection is then questionable.

methodsIn this study, we compare traditional breeding schemes based on own performance or progeny information to genomic selection schemes, for which the number of phenotypic records is limiting. Deterministic simulations were performed using selection index theory. Our focus was on the equilibrium response obtained after a few generations of selection. Therefore, we first investigated the magnitude of the Bulmer effect with genomic selection.

resultsResults showed that the reduction in response due to the Bulmer effect is the same for genomic selection as for selection based on traditional BLUP estimated breeding values, and is independent of the accuracy of selection. The reduction in response with genomic selection is greater than with selection based directly on phenotypes without the use of pedigree information, such as mass selection. To maximize the accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values when the number of phenotypic records is limiting, the same individuals should be phenotyped and genotyped, rather than genotyping parents and phenotyping their progeny. When the generation interval cannot be reduced with genomic selection, large reference populations are required to obtain a similar response to that with selection based on BLUP estimated breeding values based on own performance or progeny information. However, when a genomic selection scheme has a moderate decrease in generation interval, relatively small reference population sizes are needed to obtain a similar response to that with selection on traditional BLUP estimated breeding values.

conclusionsWhen the trait of interest cannot be recorded on the selection candidate, genomic selection schemes are very attractive even when the number of phenotypic records is limited, because traditional breeding requires progeny testing schemes with long generation intervals in those cases.

Indexed as

BreedingGenomicsAnimalsFemaleGenotypeLivestockMaleModels, GeneticPedigreePhenotypeQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID22862849
PMCPMC3441475

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.