Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26576649›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2015

Genetic evaluation with major genes and polygenic inheritance when some animals are not genotyped using gene content multiple-trait BLUP.

Andrés Legarra, Zulma G Vitezica

Open access · goldAbstract 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 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Validation of single-step GBLUP genomic predictions from threshold models using the linear regression method: An application in chicken mortality.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Current status of genomic evaluation.Journal of animal science · 2020
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrés LegarraINRA, UMR 1388 GenPhySE (Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage), 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France. andres.legarra@toulouse.inra.fr.
Zulma G VitezicaUniversité de Toulouse, INPT, ENSAT, UMR 1388 GenPhySE (Génétique, Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage), 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Génétique Physiologie et Systèmes d'Elevage · FRInstitut National Polytechnique de Toulouse · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn pedigreed populations with a major gene segregating for a quantitative trait, it is not clear how to use pedigree, genotype and phenotype information when some individuals are not genotyped. We propose to consider gene content at the major gene as a second trait correlated to the quantitative trait, in a gene content multiple-trait best linear unbiased prediction (GCMTBLUP) method.

resultsThe genetic covariance between the trait and gene content at the major gene is a function of the substitution effect of the gene. This genetic covariance can be written in a multiple-trait form that accommodates any pattern of missing values for either genotype or phenotype data. Effects of major gene alleles and the genetic covariance between genotype at the major gene and the phenotype can be estimated using standard EM-REML or Gibbs sampling. Prediction of breeding values with genotypes at the major gene can use multiple-trait BLUP software. Major genes with more than two alleles can be considered by including negative covariances between gene contents at each different allele. We simulated two scenarios: a selected and an unselected trait with heritabilities of 0.05 and 0.5, respectively. In both cases, the major gene explained half the genetic variation. Competing methods used imputed gene contents derived by the method of Gengler et al. or by iterative peeling. Imputed gene contents, in contrast to GCMTBLUP, do not consider information on the quantitative trait for genotype prediction. GCMTBLUP gave unbiased estimates of the gene effect, in contrast to the other methods, with less bias and better or equal accuracy of prediction. GCMTBLUP improved estimation of genotypes in non-genotyped individuals, in particular if these individuals had own phenotype records and the trait had a high heritability. Ignoring the major gene in genetic evaluation led to serious biases and decreased prediction accuracy.

conclusionsCGMTBLUP is the best linear predictor of additive genetic merit including pedigree, phenotype, and genotype information at major genes, since it considers missing genotypes. Simulations confirm that it is a simple, efficient and theoretically sound method for genetic evaluation of traits influenced by polygenic inheritance and one or several major genes.

Indexed as

Evolution, MolecularGenetic Association StudiesModels, GeneticMultifactorial InheritanceQuantitative Trait, HeritableSelection, GeneticAlgorithmsAnimalsBreedingComputer SimulationFemaleGenetics, PopulationGenotypeMalePedigreePhenotype

Identifiers

PMID26576649
PMCPMC5518164
OpenAlexW2172973568

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.