Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24904635›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2014

Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes in a single-step (ssGWAS) for 6-week body weight in broiler chickens.

Huiyu Wang, Ignacy Misztal, Ignacio Aguilar, Andres Legarra, Rohan L Fernando, Zulma Vitezica, Ron Okimoto, Terry Wing, Rachel Hawken, William M Muir

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 114 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
114citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

114 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Genomic Prediction and Genome-Wide Association Analysis of Heat Tolerance for Milk Yield in Buffaloes Using a Reaction Norm Model.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

54 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

10 authors.

Huiyu WangGenus plc Hendersonville, TN, USA.
Ignacy MisztalDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA.
Ignacio AguilarInstituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria, INIA Las Brujas, Mejoramiento Genético Animal Canelones, Uruguay.
Andres LegarraInstitut National de la Recherche Agronomique, UR631 Station d'Amélioration Génétique des Animaux Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Rohan L FernandoDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University Ames, IA, USA.
Zulma VitezicaDépartement de Sciences Animales, Ecole Nationale Superieure Agronomique de Toulouse, Université de Toulouse Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Ron OkimotoCobb-Vantress Inc. Siloam Springs, AR, USA.
Terry WingCobb-Vantress Inc. Siloam Springs, AR, USA.
Rachel HawkenCobb-Vantress Inc. Siloam Springs, AR, USA.
William M MuirDepartment of Animal Science, Purdue University West Lafayette, IN, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare results obtained from various methodologies for genome-wide association studies, when applied to real data, in terms of number and commonality of regions identified and their genetic variance explained, computational speed, and possible pitfalls in interpretations of results. Methodologies include: two iteratively reweighted single-step genomic BLUP procedures (ssGWAS1 and ssGWAS2), a single-marker model (CGWAS), and BayesB. The ssGWAS methods utilize genomic breeding values (GEBVs) based on combined pedigree, genomic and phenotypic information, while CGWAS and BayesB only utilize phenotypes from genotyped animals or pseudo-phenotypes. In this study, ssGWAS was performed by converting GEBVs to SNP marker effects. Unequal variances for markers were incorporated for calculating weights into a new genomic relationship matrix. SNP weights were refined iteratively. The data was body weight at 6 weeks on 274,776 broiler chickens, of which 4553 were genotyped using a 60 k SNP chip. Comparison of genomic regions was based on genetic variances explained by local SNP regions (20 SNPs). After 3 iterations, the noise was greatly reduced for ssGWAS1 and results are similar to that of CGWAS, with 4 out of the top 10 regions in common. In contrast, for BayesB, the plot was dominated by a single region explaining 23.1% of the genetic variance. This same region was found by ssGWAS1 with the same rank, but the amount of genetic variation attributed to the region was only 3%. These findings emphasize the need for caution when comparing and interpreting results from various methods, and highlight that detected associations, and strength of association, strongly depends on methodologies and details of implementations. BayesB appears to overly shrink regions to zero, while overestimating the amount of genetic variation attributed to the remaining SNP effects. The real world is most likely a compromise between methods and remains to be determined.

Indexed as

association mappingBayesBbody weightbroiler chickengenome-wide associationssGWAS

Identifiers

PMID24904635
PMCPMC4033036

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.