Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26438289›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2015

Estimation of Additive, Dominance, and Imprinting Genetic Variance Using Genomic Data.

Marcos S Lopes, John W M Bastiaansen, Luc Janss, Egbert F Knol, Henk Bovenhuis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 48 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Analysis of genetic dominance in the UK Biobank.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Modeling copy number variation in the genomic prediction of maize hybrids.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcos S LopesTopigs Norsvin Research Center, 6641SZ Beuningen, The Netherlands Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands Marcos.Lopes@topigsnorsvin.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4715-853X
John W M BastiaansenAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Luc JanssCentre for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark.
Egbert F KnolTopigs Norsvin Research Center, 6641SZ Beuningen, The Netherlands.
Henk BovenhuisAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen University, 6708PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Wageningen University & Research · NLAarhus University · DKTopigs Norsvin (Netherlands) · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditionally, exploration of genetic variance in humans, plants, and livestock species has been limited mostly to the use of additive effects estimated using pedigree data. However, with the development of dense panels of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), the exploration of genetic variation of complex traits is moving from quantifying the resemblance between family members to the dissection of genetic variation at individual loci. With SNPs, we were able to quantify the contribution of additive, dominance, and imprinting variance to the total genetic variance by using a SNP regression method. The method was validated in simulated data and applied to three traits (number of teats, backfat, and lifetime daily gain) in three purebred pig populations. In simulated data, the estimates of additive, dominance, and imprinting variance were very close to the simulated values. In real data, dominance effects account for a substantial proportion of the total genetic variance (up to 44%) for these traits in these populations. The contribution of imprinting to the total phenotypic variance of the evaluated traits was relatively small (1-3%). Our results indicate a strong relationship between additive variance explained per chromosome and chromosome length, which has been described previously for other traits in other species. We also show that a similar linear relationship exists for dominance and imprinting variance. These novel results improve our understanding of the genetic architecture of the evaluated traits and shows promise to apply the SNP regression method to other traits and species, including human diseases.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationGenomeGenomic ImprintingGenomicsInheritance PatternsAlgorithmsAnimalsChromosomes, MammalianComputer SimulationGenetic Association StudiesGenotypeModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideSwineGenPredphenotype predictionpigsshared data resourceSNPvariance component

Identifiers

PMID26438289
PMCPMC4683636
OpenAlexW2210876692

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.