ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2015
Reliability of pedigree-based and genomic evaluations in selected populations.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
35 citing papers in PubMed.
- A deregression-based approach to integrate multitrait information into a single pooled phenotype for genetic evaluation.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
- Restructuring breeding programs 2: Assortative mating for improved commercial genetic gain when using optimum contribution selection and diversity introduction.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
- Restructuring breeding programs 1: Integration of diversity.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
- Genetic evaluation of flowering, maturity time and productivity in almond (Prunus dulcis): heritability estimates and breeding value predictions.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Preliminary Evaluation of Blending, Tuning, and Scaling Parameters in ssGBLUP for Genomic Prediction Accuracy in South African Holstein Cattle.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- SIRE 2.0: a novel method for estimating polygenic host effects underlying infectious disease transmission, and analytical expressions for prediction accuracies.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Big data and artificial intelligence-aided crop breeding: Progress and prospects.Journal of integrative plant biology · 2025Review
- Genomic selection strategies to overcome genotype by environment interactions in biosecurity-based aquaculture breeding programs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Genotyping strategies for single-step genomic predictions in a simulated sheep population under different scenarios of pedigree error types.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Combining genotyping approaches improves resolution for association mapping: a case study in tropical maize under water stress conditions.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Article
- Developing climate-resilient rice varieties (BRRI dhan97 and BRRI dhan99) suitable for salt-stress environments in Bangladesh.PloS one · 2024Article
- Genetic Variance Estimation over Time in Broiler Breeding Programmes for Growth and Reproductive Traits.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Article
- Relationship between inbreeding and milk production traits in two Italian dairy sheep breeds.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2023Article
- Average semivariance directly yields accurate estimates of the genomic variance in complex trait analyses.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Article
- Large uncertainty in individual polygenic risk score estimation impacts PRS-based risk stratification.Nature genetics · 2022Article
- Genomic Prediction of Complex Traits, Principles, Overview of Factors Affecting the Reliability of Genomic Prediction, and Algebra of the Reliability.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Investigating the persistence of accuracy of genomic predictions over time in broilers.Journal of animal science · 2021Article
- Predicting the accuracy of genomic predictions.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.