Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25887531›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2015

Potential of genotyping-by-sequencing for genomic selection in livestock populations.

Gregor Gorjanc, Matthew A Cleveland, Ross D Houston, John M Hickey

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
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 66 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing 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

66 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Gregor GorjancThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, Scotland, UK. gregor.gorjanc@roslin.ed.ac.uk.
Matthew A ClevelandGenus Plc, 100 Bluegrass Commons Blvd., Suite 2200, Hendersonville, TN, 37075, USA. matthew.cleveland@genusplc.com.
Ross D HoustonThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, Scotland, UK. ross.houston@roslin.ed.ac.uk.
John M HickeyThe Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, Scotland, UK. john.hickey@roslin.ed.ac.uk.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/H022007/1Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20211553Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20211554Medical Research Council MR/M000370/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNext-generation sequencing techniques, such as genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS), provide alternatives to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays. The aim of this work was to evaluate the potential of GBS compared to SNP array genotyping for genomic selection in livestock populations.

methodsThe value of GBS was quantified by simulation analyses in which three parameters were varied: (i) genome-wide sequence read depth (x) per individual from 0.01x to 20x or using SNP array genotyping; (ii) number of genotyped markers from 3000 to 300 000; and (iii) size of training and prediction sets from 500 to 50 000 individuals. The latter was achieved by distributing the total available x of 1000x, 5000x, or 10 000x per genotyped locus among the varying number of individuals. With SNP arrays, genotypes were called from sequence data directly. With GBS, genotypes were called from sequence reads that varied between loci and individuals according to a Poisson distribution with mean equal to x. Simulated data were analyzed with ridge regression and the accuracy and bias of genomic predictions and response to selection were quantified under the different scenarios.

resultsAccuracies of genomic predictions using GBS data or SNP array data were comparable when large numbers of markers were used and x per individual was ~1x or higher. The bias of genomic predictions was very high at a very low x. When the total available x was distributed among the training individuals, the accuracy of prediction was maximized when a large number of individuals was used that had GBS data with low x for a large number of markers. Similarly, response to selection was maximized under the same conditions due to increasing both accuracy and selection intensity.

conclusionsGBS offers great potential for developing genomic selection in livestock populations because it makes it possible to cover large fractions of the genome and to vary the sequence read depth per individual. Thus, the accuracy of predictions is improved by increasing the size of training populations and the intensity of selection is increased by genotyping a larger number of selection candidates.

Indexed as

GenomicsGenotypeGenotyping TechniquesPolymorphism, Single NucleotideAnimalsBreedingComputer SimulationGenetic MarkersGenomeLivestockModels, GeneticPedigreePhenotypeQuantitative Trait LociSequence Analysis, DNAGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID25887531
PMCPMC4344748

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.