Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25956961›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2015

Sequence- vs. chip-assisted genomic selection: accurate biological information is advised.

Miguel Pérez-Enciso, Juan C Rincón, Andrés Legarra

Abstract readEvaluation 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 84 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing 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

84 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Deciphering genetic diversity and selection footprints in Rathi cattle through ddRAD-based genome-wide analysis.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Importance of genetic architecture in marker selection decisions for genomic prediction.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

24 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

3 authors.

Miguel Pérez-EncisoCentre for Research in Agricultural Genomics (CRAG), CSIC-IRTA-UAB-UB Consortium, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. miguel.perez@uab.es.
Juan C RincónCentre for Research in Agricultural Genomics (CRAG), CSIC-IRTA-UAB-UB Consortium, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. jcrincon@unal.edu.co.
Andrés LegarraINRA, UMR 1388 GENPHYSE, Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage, Castanet-Tolosan, 31326, France. andres.legarra@toulouse.inra.fr.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe development of next-generation sequencing technologies (NGS) has made the use of whole-genome sequence data for routine genetic evaluations possible, which has triggered a considerable interest in animal and plant breeding fields. Here, we investigated whether complete or partial sequence data can improve upon existing SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) array-based selection strategies by simulation using a mixed coalescence - gene-dropping approach.

resultsWe simulated 20 or 100 causal mutations (quantitative trait nucleotides, QTN) within 65 predefined 'gene' regions, each 10 kb long, within a genome composed of ten 3-Mb chromosomes. We compared prediction accuracy by cross-validation using a medium-density chip (7.5 k SNPs), a high-density (HD, 17 k) and sequence data (335 k). Genetic evaluation was based on a GBLUP method. The simulations showed: (1) a law of diminishing returns with increasing number of SNPs; (2) a modest effect of SNP ascertainment bias in arrays; (3) a small advantage of using whole-genome sequence data vs. HD arrays i.e. ~4%; (4) a minor effect of NGS errors except when imputation error rates are high (≥20%); and (5) if QTN were known, prediction accuracy approached 1. Since this is obviously unrealistic, we explored milder assumptions. We showed that, if all SNPs within causal genes were included in the prediction model, accuracy could also dramatically increase by ~40%. However, this criterion was highly sensitive to either misspecification (including wrong genes) or to the use of an incomplete gene list; in these cases, accuracy fell rapidly towards that reached when all SNPs from sequence data were blindly included in the model.

conclusionsOur study shows that, unless an accurate prior estimate on the functionality of SNPs can be included in the predictor, there is a law of diminishing returns with increasing SNP density. As a result, use of whole-genome sequence data may not result in a highly increased selection response over high-density genotyping.

Indexed as

Genotyping TechniquesHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSequence Analysis, DNAAnimalsBreedingCattleGenomicsMutationReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID25956961
PMCPMC4424891

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.