ArticleAnimal genetics2015
Efficiency of genomic prediction for boar taint reduction in Danish Landrace pigs.
Article in Animal genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic Prediction and Genome-Wide Association Study for Boar Taint Compounds.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- How to Improve Meat Quality and Welfare in Entire Male Pigs by Genetics.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Review
- Multi-trait single-step genomic prediction accounting for heterogeneous (co)variances over the genome.Heredity · 2020Article
- Expanding the BLUP alphabet for genomic prediction adaptable to the genetic architectures of complex traits.Heredity · 2018Article
- Systems genomics study reveals expression quantitative trait loci, regulator genes and pathways associated with boar taint in pigs.PloS one · 2018Article
- Fine mapping of a QTL affecting levels of skatole on pig chromosome 7.BMC genetics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic selection against boar taint, which is caused by high skatole and androstenone concentrations in fat, is a more acceptable alternative than is the current practice of castration. Genomic predictors offer an opportunity to overcome the limitations of such selection caused by the phenotype being expressed only in males at slaughter, and this study evaluated different approaches to obtain such predictors. Samples from 1000 pigs were included in a design which was dominated by 421 sib pairs, each pair having one animal with high and one with low skatole concentration (≥0.3 μg/g). All samples were measured for both skatole and androstenone and genotyped using the Illumina SNP60 porcine BeadChip for 62 153 single nucleotide polymorphisms. The accuracy of predicting phenotypes was assessed by cross-validation using six different genomic evaluation methods: genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and five Bayesian regression methods. In addition, this was compared to the accuracy of predictions using only QTL that showed genome-wide significance. The range of accuracies obtained by different prediction methods was narrow for androstenone, between 0.29 (Bayes Lasso) and 0.31 (Bayes B), and wider for skatole, between 0.21 (GBLUP) and 0.26 (Bayes SSVS). Relative accuracies, corrected for h(2) , were 0.54-0.56 and 0.75-0.94 for androstenone and skatole respectively. The whole-genome evaluation methods gave greater accuracy than using only the QTL detected in the data. The results demonstrate that GBLUP for androstenone is the simplest genomic technology to implement and was also close to the most accurate method. More specialised models may be preferable for skatole.
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.