Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25284459›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2014

Genomic prediction based on runs of homozygosity.

Tu Luan, Xijiang Yu, Marlies Dolezal, Alessandro Bagnato, Theo He Meuwissen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A genealogical estimate of genetic relationships.American journal of human genetics · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors.

Tu LuanDepartment of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, N-1432, Norway. tu.luan@nmbu.no.
Xijiang YuDepartment of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, N-1432, Norway. xijiang.yu@nmbu.no.
Marlies DolezalDipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Veterinarie per la Sicurezza Alimentare, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 10, 20133, Milano, Italy. marlies.dolezal@gmail.com.
Alessandro BagnatoDipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Veterinarie per la Sicurezza Alimentare, Università degli Studi di Milano, Via Celoria 10, 20133, Milano, Italy. alessandro.bagnato@unimi.it.
Theo He MeuwissenDepartment of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, N-1432, Norway. theo.meuwissen@nmbu.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic prediction is based on the accurate estimation of the genomic relationships among and between training animals and selection candidates in order to obtain accurate estimates of the genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). Various methods have been used to predict GEBV based on population-wide linkage disequilibrium relationships (G IBS ) or sometimes on linkage analysis relationships (G LA ). Here, we propose a novel method to predict GEBV based on a genomic relationship matrix using runs of homozygosity (G ROH ). Runs of homozygosity were used to derive probabilities of multi-locus identity by descent chromosome segments. The accuracy and bias of the prediction of GEBV using G ROH were compared to those using G IBS and G LA . Comparisons were performed using simulated datasets derived from a random pedigree and a real pedigree of Italian Brown Swiss bulls. The comparison of accuracies of GEBV was also performed on data from 1086 Italian Brown Swiss dairy cattle.

resultsSimulations with various thresholds of minor allele frequency for markers and quantitative trait loci showed that G ROH achieved consistently more accurate GEBV (0 to 4% points higher) than G IBS and G LA . The bias of GEBV prediction for simulated data was higher based on the real pedigree than based on a random pedigree. In the analyses with real data, G ROH and G LA had similar accuracies. However, G LA achieved a higher accuracy when the prediction was done on the youngest animals. The G IBS matrices calculated with and without standardized marker genotypes resulted in similar accuracies.

conclusionsThe present study proposes G ROH as a novel method to estimate genomic relationship matrices and predict GEBV based on runs of homozygosity and shows that it can result in higher or similar accuracies of GEBV prediction than G LA , except for the real data analysis with validation of young animals. Compared to G IBS , G ROH resulted in more accurate GEBV predictions.

Indexed as

HomozygoteAnimalsBreedingCattleComputer SimulationGene FrequencyGenomicsMaleModels, GeneticPedigreePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID25284459
PMCPMC4189176

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.