Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26271246›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2015

Reliability of pedigree-based and genomic evaluations in selected populations.

Gregor Gorjanc, Piter Bijma, John M Hickey

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 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Restructuring breeding programs 1: Integration of diversity.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Relationship between inbreeding and milk production traits in two Italian dairy sheep breeds.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Predicting the accuracy of genomic predictions.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021
    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

3 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.
Piter BijmaWageningen University, Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen, The Netherlands. piter.bijma@wur.nl.
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 BBS/E/D/20211553Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20211554Medical Research Council MR/M000370/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReliability is an important parameter in breeding. It measures the precision of estimated breeding values (EBV) and, thus, potential response to selection on those EBV. The precision of EBV is commonly measured by relating the prediction error variance (PEV) of EBV to the base population additive genetic variance (base PEV reliability), while the potential for response to selection is commonly measured by the squared correlation between the EBV and breeding values (BV) on selection candidates (reliability of selection). While these two measures are equivalent for unselected populations, they are not equivalent for selected populations. The aim of this study was to quantify the effect of selection on these two measures of reliability and to show how this affects comparison of breeding programs using pedigree-based or genomic evaluations.

methodsTwo scenarios with random and best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) selection were simulated, where the EBV of selection candidates were estimated using only pedigree, pedigree and phenotype, genome-wide marker genotypes and phenotype, or only genome-wide marker genotypes. The base PEV reliabilities of these EBV were compared to the corresponding reliabilities of selection. Realized genetic selection intensity was evaluated to quantify the potential of selection on the different types of EBV and, thus, to validate differences in reliabilities. Finally, the contribution of different underlying processes to changes in additive genetic variance and reliabilities was quantified.

resultsThe simulations showed that, for selected populations, the base PEV reliability substantially overestimates the reliability of selection of EBV that are mainly based on old information from the parental generation, as is the case with pedigree-based prediction. Selection on such EBV gave very low realized genetic selection intensities, confirming the overestimation and importance of genotyping both male and female selection candidates. The two measures of reliability matched when the reductions in additive genetic variance due to the Bulmer effect, selection, and inbreeding were taken into account.

conclusionsFor populations under selection, EBV based on genome-wide information are more valuable than suggested by the comparison of the base PEV reliabilities between the different types of EBV. This implies that genome-wide marker information is undervalued for selected populations and that genotyping un-phenotyped female selection candidates should be reconsidered.

Indexed as

GenotypeSelection, GeneticAnimalsBreedingFemaleGenetics, PopulationGenetic VariationMaleModels, GeneticPedigreePhenotypeQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID26271246
PMCPMC4536753

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.