Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23228675›Full record

ArticleAnimal : an international journal of animal bioscience2013

Comparison of different imputation methods from low- to high-density panels using Chinese Holstein cattle.

Z Weng, Z Zhang, Q Zhang, W Fu, S He, X Ding

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Animal : an international journal of animal bioscience, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Z WengChina Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Z Zhang
Q Zhang
W Fu
S He
X Ding

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imputation of high-density genotypes from low- or medium-density platforms is a promising way to enhance the efficiency of whole-genome selection programs at low cost. In this study, we compared the efficiency of three widely used imputation algorithms (fastPHASE, BEAGLE and findhap) using Chinese Holstein cattle with Illumina BovineSNP50 genotypes. A total of 2108 cattle were randomly divided into a reference population and a test population to evaluate the influence of the reference population size. Three bovine chromosomes, BTA1, 16 and 28, were used to represent large, medium and small chromosome size, respectively. We simulated different scenarios by randomly masking 20%, 40%, 80% and 95% single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on each chromosome in the test population to mimic different SNP density panels. Illumina Bovine3K and Illumina BovineLD (6909 SNPs) information was also used. We found that the three methods showed comparable accuracy when the proportion of masked SNPs was low. However, the difference became larger when more SNPs were masked. BEAGLE performed the best and was most robust with imputation accuracies >90% in almost all situations. fastPHASE was affected by the proportion of masked SNPs, especially when the masked SNP rate was high. findhap ran the fastest, whereas its accuracies were lower than those of BEAGLE but higher than those of fastPHASE. In addition, enlarging the reference population improved the imputation accuracy for BEAGLE and findhap, but did not affect fastPHASE. Considering imputation accuracy and computational requirements, BEAGLE has been found to be more reliable for imputing genotypes from low- to high-density genotyping platforms.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGenotypeModels, GeneticAnimalsCattleChromosomesData Interpretation, StatisticalFemaleMalePolymorphism, Single NucleotideRandom AllocationSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID23228675
PMCPMC3608330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.