Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25886296›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2015

Upweighting rare favourable alleles increases long-term genetic gain in genomic selection programs.

Huiming Liu, Theo H E Meuwissen, Anders C Sørensen, Peer Berg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. A Similarity Matrix for Preserving Haplotype Diversity Amongst Parents in Genomic Selection.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 275 years of forestry meets genomics inEvolutionary applications · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

4 authors.

Huiming LiuCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, P. O. Box 50, 8830, Tjele, Denmark. Huiming.liu@agrsci.dk.
Theo H E MeuwissenDepartment of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, P. O. Box 5003, 1432, Ås, Norway. Theo.meuwissen@umb.no.
Anders C SørensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, P. O. Box 50, 8830, Tjele, Denmark. AndersC.Sorensen@agrsci.dk.
Peer BergCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, P. O. Box 50, 8830, Tjele, Denmark. Peer.Berg@nordgen.org.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe short-term impact of using different genomic prediction (GP) models in genomic selection has been intensively studied, but their long-term impact is poorly understood. Furthermore, long-term genetic gain of genomic selection is expected to improve by using Jannink's weighting (JW) method, in which rare favourable marker alleles are upweighted in the selection criterion. In this paper, we extend the JW method by including an additional parameter to decrease the emphasis on rare favourable alleles over the time horizon, with the purpose of further improving the long-term genetic gain. We call this new method dynamic weighting (DW). The paper explores the long-term impact of different GP models with or without weighting methods.

methodsDifferent selection criteria were tested by simulating a population of 500 animals with truncation selection of five males and 50 females. Selection criteria included unweighted and weighted genomic estimated breeding values using the JW or DW methods, for which ridge regression (RR) and Bayesian lasso (BL) were used to estimate marker effects. The impacts of these selection criteria were compared under three genetic architectures, i.e. varying numbers of QTL for the trait and for two time horizons of 15 (TH15) or 40 (TH40) generations.

resultsFor unweighted GP, BL resulted in up to 21.4% higher long-term genetic gain and 23.5% lower rate of inbreeding under TH40 than RR. For weighted GP, DW resulted in 1.3 to 5.5% higher long-term gain compared to unweighted GP. JW, however, showed a 6.8% lower long-term genetic gain relative to unweighted GP when BL was used to estimate the marker effects. Under TH40, both DW and JW obtained significantly higher genetic gain than unweighted GP. With DW, the long-term genetic gain was increased by up to 30.8% relative to unweighted GP, and also increased by 8% relative to JW, although at the expense of a lower short-term gain.

conclusionsIrrespective of the number of QTL simulated, BL is superior to RR in maintaining genetic variance and therefore results in higher long-term genetic gain. Moreover, DW is a promising method with which high long-term genetic gain can be expected within a fixed time frame.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationModels, GeneticSelection, GeneticAllelesAnimalsBreedingComputer SimulationFemaleGenotypeMalePhenotypeQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID25886296
PMCPMC4367977

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.