Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26870325›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2016

Mixture models detect large effect QTL better than GBLUP and result in more accurate and persistent predictions.

Anna Wolc, Jesus Arango, Petek Settar, Janet E Fulton, Neil P O'Sullivan, Jack C M Dekkers, Rohan Fernando, Dorian J Garrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

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

8 authors.

Anna WolcDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 225D Kildee Hall, Ames, IA 50011 USA ; Hy-Line International, Dallas Center, IA USA.
Jesus ArangoHy-Line International, Dallas Center, IA USA.
Petek SettarHy-Line International, Dallas Center, IA USA.
Janet E FultonHy-Line International, Dallas Center, IA USA.
Neil P O'SullivanHy-Line International, Dallas Center, IA USA.
Jack C M DekkersDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 225D Kildee Hall, Ames, IA 50011 USA.
Rohan FernandoDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 225D Kildee Hall, Ames, IA 50011 USA.
Dorian J GarrickDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, 225D Kildee Hall, Ames, IA 50011 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAccurate evaluation of SNP effects is important for genome wide association studies and for genomic prediction. The genetic architecture of quantitative traits differs widely, with some traits exhibiting few if any quantitative trait loci (QTL) with large effects, while other traits have one or several easily detectable QTL with large effects.

methodsBody weight in broilers and egg weight in layers are two examples of traits that have QTL of large effect. A commonly used method for genome wide association studies is to fit a mixture model such as BayesB that assumes some known proportion of SNP effects are zero. In contrast, the most commonly used method for genomic prediction is known as GBLUP, which involves fitting an animal model to phenotypic data with the variance-covariance or genomic relationship matrix among the animals being determined by genome wide SNP genotypes. Genotypes at each SNP are typically weighted equally in determining the genomic relationship matrix for GBLUP. We used the equivalent marker effects model formulation of GBLUP for this study. We compare these two classes of models using egg weight data collected over 8 generations from 2,324 animals genotyped with a 42 K SNP panel.

resultsUsing data from the first 7 generations, both BayesB and GBLUP found the largest QTL in a similar well-recognized QTL region, but this QTL was estimated to account for 24 % of genetic variation with BayesB and less than 1 % with GBLUP. When predicting phenotypes in generation 8 BayesB accounted for 36 % of the phenotypic variation and GBLUP for 25 %. When using only data from any one generation, the same QTL was identified with BayesB in all but one generation but never with GBLUP. Predictions of phenotypes in generations 2 to 7 based on only 295 animals from generation 1 accounted for 10 % phenotypic variation with BayesB but only 6 % with GBLUP. Predicting phenotype using only the marker effects in the 1 Mb region that accounted for the largest effect on egg weight from generation 1 data alone accounted for almost 8 % variation using BayesB but had no predictive power with GBLUP.

conclusionsIn conclusion, In the presence of large effect QTL, BayesB did a better job of QTL detection and its genomic predictions were more accurate and persistent than those from GBLUP.

Indexed as

Bayesian methodsBiasQTL

Identifiers

PMID26870325
PMCPMC4750167

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.