Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25927219›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2014

Genomic prediction based on data from three layer lines: a comparison between linear methods.

Mario Pl Calus, Heyun Huang, Addie Vereijken, Jeroen Visscher, Jan Ten Napel, Jack J Windig

Abstract readComparative Study
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 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Genomic Prediction in a Self-Fertilized Progenies ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

6 authors.

Mario Pl CalusAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700, AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. mario.calus@wur.nl.
Heyun HuangAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700, AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. heyunhuang@qq.com.
Addie VereijkenHendrix Genetics Research, Technology & Services B.V., P.O. Box 114, 5830, AC, Boxmeer, The Netherlands. Addie.Vereijken@hendrix-genetics.com.
Jeroen VisscherISA, Institut de Sélection Animale, P.O. Box 114, 5830, AC, Boxmeer, The Netherlands. Jeroen.Visscher@hendrix-genetics.com.
Jan Ten NapelAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700, AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. jan.tennapel@wur.nl.
Jack J WindigAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700, AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. jack.windig@wur.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prediction accuracy of several linear genomic prediction models, which have previously been used for within-line genomic prediction, was evaluated for multi-line genomic prediction.

methodsCompared to a conventional BLUP (best linear unbiased prediction) model using pedigree data, we evaluated the following genomic prediction models: genome-enabled BLUP (GBLUP), ridge regression BLUP (RRBLUP), principal component analysis followed by ridge regression (RRPCA), BayesC and Bayesian stochastic search variable selection. Prediction accuracy was measured as the correlation between predicted breeding values and observed phenotypes divided by the square root of the heritability. The data used concerned laying hens with phenotypes for number of eggs in the first production period and known genotypes. The hens were from two closely-related brown layer lines (B1 and B2), and a third distantly-related white layer line (W1). Lines had 1004 to 1023 training animals and 238 to 240 validation animals. Training datasets consisted of animals of either single lines, or a combination of two or all three lines, and had 30 508 to 45 974 segregating single nucleotide polymorphisms.

resultsGenomic prediction models yielded 0.13 to 0.16 higher accuracies than pedigree-based BLUP. When excluding the line itself from the training dataset, genomic predictions were generally inaccurate. Use of multiple lines marginally improved prediction accuracy for B2 but did not affect or slightly decreased prediction accuracy for B1 and W1. Differences between models were generally small except for RRPCA which gave considerably higher accuracies for B2. Correlations between genomic predictions from different methods were higher than 0.96 for W1 and higher than 0.88 for B1 and B2. The greater differences between methods for B1 and B2 were probably due to the lower accuracy of predictions for B1 (~0.45) and B2 (~0.40) compared to W1 (~0.76).

conclusionsMulti-line genomic prediction did not affect or slightly improved prediction accuracy for closely-related lines. For distantly-related lines, multi-line genomic prediction yielded similar or slightly lower accuracies than single-line genomic prediction. Bayesian variable selection and GBLUP generally gave similar accuracies. Overall, RRPCA yielded the greatest accuracies for two lines, suggesting that using PCA helps to alleviate the "n ≪ p" problem in genomic prediction.

Indexed as

BreedingModels, GeneticAnimalsBayes TheoremChickensEggsFemaleGenomeGenomicsGenotypeLinear ModelsPedigreePolymorphism, Single NucleotidePrincipal Component AnalysisQuantitative Trait, Heritable

Identifiers

PMID25927219
PMCPMC4180920

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.