Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25038782›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2014

Rapid screening for phenotype-genotype associations by linear transformations of genomic evaluations.

Jose L Gualdrón Duarte, Rodolfo J C Cantet, Ronald O Bates, Catherine W Ernst, Nancy E Raney, Juan P Steibel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Single-Step Genome-Wide Association Study of Factors for Evaluated and Linearly Scored Traits in Swedish Warmblood Horses.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  5. Practical Considerations When Using Mendelian Sampling Variances for Selection Decisions in Genomic Selection Programs.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jose L Gualdrón Duarte
Rodolfo J C Cantet
Ronald O Bates
Catherine W Ernst
Nancy E Raney
Juan P SteibelDepartment of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA. steibelj@msu.edu.
Michigan State University · USConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas · AR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, association studies are analysed using statistical mixed models, with marker effects estimated by a linear transformation of genomic breeding values. The variances of marker effects are needed when performing the tests of association. However, approaches used to estimate the parameters rely on a prior variance or on a constant estimate of the additive variance. Alternatively, we propose a standardized test of association using the variance of each marker effect, which generally differ among each other. Random breeding values from a mixed model including fixed effects and a genomic covariance matrix are linearly transformed to estimate the marker effects.

resultsThe standardized test was neither conservative nor liberal with respect to type I error rate (false-positives), compared to a similar test using Predictor Error Variance, a method that was too conservative. Furthermore, genomic predictions are solved efficiently by the procedure, and the p-values are virtually identical to those calculated from tests for one marker effect at a time. Moreover, the standardized test reduces computing time and memory requirements.The following steps are used to locate genome segments displaying strong association. The marker with the highest - log(p-value) in each chromosome is selected, and the segment is expanded one Mb upstream and one Mb downstream of the marker. A genomic matrix is calculated using the information from those markers only, which is used as the variance-covariance of the segment effects in a model that also includes fixed effects and random genomic breeding values. The likelihood ratio is then calculated to test for the effect in every chromosome against a reduced model with fixed effects and genomic breeding values. In a case study with pigs, a significant segment from chromosome 6 explained 11% of total genetic variance.

conclusionsThe standardized test of marker effects using their own variance helps in detecting specific genomic regions involved in the additive variance, and in reducing false positives. Moreover, genome scanning of candidate segments can be used in meta-analyses of genome-wide association studies, as it enables the detection of specific genome regions that affect an economically relevant trait when using multiple populations.

Indexed as

AnimalsBreedingGenetic Association StudiesGenetic MarkersGenetic VariationGenomicsModels, StatisticalSwineTime FactorsGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID25038782
PMCPMC4112210
OpenAlexW2014419197

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.