ArticleHeredity2014
Systematic differences in the response of genetic variation to pedigree and genome-based selection methods.
Article in Heredity, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in allele frequencies and genetic architecture due to selection in two pig populations.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024Article
- The long-term effects of genomic selection: 2. Changes in allele frequencies of causal loci and new mutations.Genetics · 2023Article
- Article
- The long-term effects of genomic selection: 1. Response to selection, additive genetic variance, and genetic architecture.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022Article
- Favorable Conditions for Genomic Evaluation to Outperform Classical Pedigree Evaluation Highlighted by a Proof-of-Concept Study in Poplar.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Article
- Article
- Trends in genome-wide and region-specific genetic diversity in the Dutch-Flemish Holstein-Friesian breeding program from 1986 to 2015.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018Article
- Genome-Wide Characterization of Selection Signatures and Runs of Homozygosity in Ugandan Goat Breeds.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Article
- Artificial selection on introduced Asian haplotypes shaped the genetic architecture in European commercial pigs.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2015Article
- Response and inbreeding from a genomic selection experiment in layer chickens.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2015Article
- Using genome-wide measures of coancestry to maintain diversity and fitness in endangered and domestic pig populations.Genome research · 2015Article
- Artificial selection with traditional or genomic relationships: consequences in coancestry and genetic diversity.Frontiers in genetics · 2015Article
- Methods to address poultry robustness and welfare issues through breeding and associated ethical considerations.Frontiers in genetics · 2014Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic selection (GS) is a DNA-based method of selecting for quantitative traits in animal and plant breeding, and offers a potentially superior alternative to traditional breeding methods that rely on pedigree and phenotype information. Using a 60 K SNP chip with markers spaced throughout the entire chicken genome, we compared the impact of GS and traditional BLUP (best linear unbiased prediction) selection methods applied side-by-side in three different lines of egg-laying chickens. Differences were demonstrated between methods, both at the level and genomic distribution of allele frequency changes. In all three lines, the average allele frequency changes were larger with GS, 0.056 0.064 and 0.066, compared with BLUP, 0.044, 0.045 and 0.036 for lines B1, B2 and W1, respectively. With BLUP, 35 selected regions (empirical P < 0.05) were identified across the three lines. With GS, 70 selected regions were identified. Empirical thresholds for local allele frequency changes were determined from gene dropping, and differed considerably between GS (0.167-0.198) and BLUP (0.105-0.126). Between lines, the genomic regions with large changes in allele frequencies showed limited overlap. Our results show that GS applies selection pressure much more locally than BLUP, resulting in larger allele frequency changes. With these results, novel insights into the nature of selection on quantitative traits have been gained and important questions regarding the long-term impact of GS are raised. The rapid changes to a part of the genetic architecture, while another part may not be selected, at least in the short term, require careful consideration, especially when selection occurs before phenotypes are observed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.