Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26381777›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2015

Genomic prediction using imputed whole-genome sequence data in Holstein Friesian cattle.

Rianne van Binsbergen, Mario P L Calus, Marco C A M Bink, Fred A van Eeuwijk, Chris Schrooten, Roel F Veerkamp

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 78 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
78citing 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

78 citing papers in PubMed.

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

18 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

6 authors.

Rianne van BinsbergenAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. rianne.vanbinsbergen@wur.nl.
Mario P L CalusAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. mario.calus@wur.nl.
Marco C A M BinkBiometris, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. marco.bink@wur.nl.
Fred A van EeuwijkBiometris, Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 16, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands. fred.vaneeuwijk@wur.nl.
Chris SchrootenCRV, Arnhem, The Netherlands. chris.schrooten@crv4all.com.
Roel F VeerkampAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, PO Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. roel.veerkamp@wur.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn contrast to currently used single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panels, the use of whole-genome sequence data is expected to enable the direct estimation of the effects of causal mutations on a given trait. This could lead to higher reliabilities of genomic predictions compared to those based on SNP genotypes. Also, at each generation of selection, recombination events between a SNP and a mutation can cause decay in reliability of genomic predictions based on markers rather than on the causal variants. Our objective was to investigate the use of imputed whole-genome sequence genotypes versus high-density SNP genotypes on (the persistency of) the reliability of genomic predictions using real cattle data.

methodsHighly accurate phenotypes based on daughter performance and Illumina BovineHD Beadchip genotypes were available for 5503 Holstein Friesian bulls. The BovineHD genotypes (631,428 SNPs) of each bull were used to impute whole-genome sequence genotypes (12,590,056 SNPs) using the Beagle software. Imputation was done using a multi-breed reference panel of 429 sequenced individuals. Genomic estimated breeding values for three traits were predicted using a Bayesian stochastic search variable selection (BSSVS) model and a genome-enabled best linear unbiased prediction model (GBLUP). Reliabilities of predictions were based on 2087 validation bulls, while the other 3416 bulls were used for training.

resultsPrediction reliabilities ranged from 0.37 to 0.52. BSSVS performed better than GBLUP in all cases. Reliabilities of genomic predictions were slightly lower with imputed sequence data than with BovineHD chip data. Also, the reliabilities tended to be lower for both sequence data and BovineHD chip data when relationships between training animals were low. No increase in persistency of prediction reliability using imputed sequence data was observed.

conclusionsCompared to BovineHD genotype data, using imputed sequence data for genomic prediction produced no advantage. To investigate the putative advantage of genomic prediction using (imputed) sequence data, a training set with a larger number of individuals that are distantly related to each other and genomic prediction models that incorporate biological information on the SNPs or that apply stricter SNP pre-selection should be considered.

Indexed as

GenomeModels, GeneticSequence Analysis, DNAAlgorithmsAnimalsCattleChromosomes, MammalianGene FrequencyGenomicsGenotypeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingPedigreePhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID26381777
PMCPMC4574568

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.