ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2014
Prioritizing animals for dense genotyping in order to impute missing genotypes of sparsely genotyped animals.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Insights into natural neocentromere evolution from a cattle T2T X chromosome.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Comparing Methods to Select Candidates for Re-Genotyping to Impute Higher-Density Genotype Data in a Japanese Black Cattle Population: A Case Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Optimisation of the core subset for the APY approximation of genomic relationships.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022Article
- Optimizing Sequencing Resources in Genotyped Livestock Populations Using Linear Programming.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Evaluation of sequencing strategies for whole-genome imputation with hybrid peeling.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2020Article
- Exome sequencing highlights the role of wild-relative introgression in shaping the adaptive landscape of the wheat genome.Nature genetics · 2019Article
- GWAS on Imputed Whole-Genome Resequencing From Genotyping-by-Sequencing Data for Farrowing Interval of Different Parities in Pigs.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Imputation from SNP chip to sequence: a case study in a Chinese indigenous chicken population.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2018Article
- Exome sequence genotype imputation in globally diverse hexaploid wheat accessions.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGenotyping accounts for a substantial part of the cost of genomic selection (GS). Using both dense and sparse SNP chips, together with imputation of missing genotypes, can reduce these costs. The aim of this study was to identify the set of candidates that are most important for dense genotyping, when they are used to impute the genotypes of sparsely genotyped animals. In a real pig pedigree, the 2500 most recently born pigs of the last generation, i.e. the target animals, were used for sparse genotyping. Their missing genotypes were imputed using either Beagle or LDMIP from T densely genotyped candidates chosen from the whole pedigree. A new optimization method was derived to identify the best animals for dense genotyping, which minimized the conditional genetic variance of the target animals, using either the pedigree-based relationship matrix (MCA), or a genotypic relationship matrix based on sparse marker genotypes (MCG). These, and five other methods for selecting the T animals were compared, using T = 100 or 200 animals, SNP genotypes were obtained assuming Ne =100 or 200, and MAF thresholds set to D = 0.01, 0.05 or 0.10. The performances of the methods were compared using the following criteria: call rate of true genotypes, accuracy of genotype prediction, and accuracy of genomic evaluations using the imputed genotypes.
resultsFor all criteria, MCA and MCG performed better than other selection methods, significantly so for all methods other than selection of sires with the largest numbers of offspring. Methods that choose animals that have the closest average relationship or contribution to the target population gave the lowest accuracy of imputation, in some cases worse than random selection, and should be avoided in practice.
conclusionMinimization of the conditional variance of the genotypes in target animals provided an effective optimization procedure for prioritizing animals for genotyping or sequencing.
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.