Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26586567›Full record

ArticleBMC genetics2015

Impact of QTL minor allele frequency on genomic evaluation using real genotype data and simulated phenotypes in Japanese Black cattle.

Yoshinobu Uemoto, Shinji Sasaki, Takatoshi Kojima, Yoshikazu Sugimoto, Toshio Watanabe

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genetics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Impact of Model Parameterisation and Variance Component Estimates on Genomic Predictions of Carcass Traits in Montana Composite Cattle.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Yoshinobu UemotoNational Livestock Breeding Center, Nishigo, Fukushima, 961-8511, Japan. y0uemoto@nlbc.go.jp.
Shinji SasakiNational Livestock Breeding Center, Nishigo, Fukushima, 961-8511, Japan. s1sasaki@nlbc.go.jp.
Takatoshi KojimaNational Livestock Breeding Center, Nishigo, Fukushima, 961-8511, Japan. t0kojima@nlbc.go.jp.
Yoshikazu SugimotoShirakawa Institute of Animal Genetics, Japan Livestock Technology Association, Nishigo, Fukushima, 961-8511, Japan. kazusugi@siag.or.jp.
Toshio WatanabeNational Livestock Breeding Center, Nishigo, Fukushima, 961-8511, Japan. t4watanb@nlbc.go.jp.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenetic variance that is not captured by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) is due to imperfect linkage disequilibrium (LD) between SNPs and quantitative trait loci (QTLs), and the extent of LD between SNPs and QTLs depends on different minor allele frequencies (MAF) between them. To evaluate the impact of MAF of QTLs on genomic evaluation, we performed a simulation study using real cattle genotype data.

methodsIn total, 1368 Japanese Black cattle and 592,034 SNPs (Illumina BovineHD BeadChip) were used. We simulated phenotypes using real genotypes under different scenarios, varying the MAF categories, QTL heritability, number of QTLs, and distribution of QTL effect. After generating true breeding values and phenotypes, QTL heritability was estimated and the prediction accuracy of genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) was assessed under different SNP densities, prediction models, and population size by a reference-test validation design.

resultsThe extent of LD between SNPs and QTLs in this population was higher in the QTLs with high MAF than in those with low MAF. The effect of MAF of QTLs depended on the genetic architecture, evaluation strategy, and population size in genomic evaluation. In genetic architecture, genomic evaluation was affected by the MAF of QTLs combined with the QTL heritability and the distribution of QTL effect. The number of QTL was not affected on genomic evaluation if the number of QTL was more than 50. In the evaluation strategy, we showed that different SNP densities and prediction models affect the heritability estimation and genomic prediction and that this depends on the MAF of QTLs. In addition, accurate QTL heritability and GEBV were obtained using denser SNP information and the prediction model accounted for the SNPs with low and high MAFs. In population size, a large sample size is needed to increase the accuracy of GEBV.

conclusionThe MAF of QTL had an impact on heritability estimation and prediction accuracy. Most genetic variance can be captured using denser SNPs and the prediction model accounted for MAF, but a large sample size is needed to increase the accuracy of GEBV under all QTL MAF categories.

Indexed as

Quantitative Trait LociAnimalsCattleComputer SimulationGene FrequencyGenetics, PopulationGenotypeModels, GeneticQuantitative Trait, Heritable

Identifiers

PMID26586567
PMCPMC4653875

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.