Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27235308›Full record

ArticleGenetics2016

Genomic Prediction for Quantitative Traits Is Improved by Mapping Variants to Gene Ontology Categories in Drosophila melanogaster.

Stefan M Edwards, Izel F Sørensen, Pernille Sarup, Trudy F C Mackay, Peter Sørensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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. Residual networks without pooling layers improve the accuracy of genomic predictions.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Stefan M EdwardsCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830 Tjele, Denmark The Roslin Institute and Royal (Dick) School of Veterinary Studies, The University of Edinburgh, Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG Scotland, United Kingdom.
Izel F SørensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830 Tjele, Denmark.
Pernille SarupCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830 Tjele, Denmark.
Trudy F C MackayDepartment of Biological Sciences and Program in Genetics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695.
Peter SørensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830 Tjele, Denmark pso@mbg.au.dk.

Funding

Genetics of Alcohol Sensitivity in DrosophilaR01AA016560 · NIAAA · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI ANHOLT, ROBERT R. H, MACKAY, TRUDY F. · 2007 to 2016
$4.0M
Systems Genetics of Drosophila Life SpanR01AG043490 · NIA · NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY RALEIGH · PI ANHOLT, ROBERT R. H, CARBONE, MARY ANNA · 2013 to 2017
$1.9M
NIAAA NIH HHS R01 AA016560NIA NIH HHS R01 AG043490
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Predicting individual quantitative trait phenotypes from high-resolution genomic polymorphism data is important for personalized medicine in humans, plant and animal breeding, and adaptive evolution. However, this is difficult for populations of unrelated individuals when the number of causal variants is low relative to the total number of polymorphisms and causal variants individually have small effects on the traits. We hypothesized that mapping molecular polymorphisms to genomic features such as genes and their gene ontology categories could increase the accuracy of genomic prediction models. We developed a genomic feature best linear unbiased prediction (GFBLUP) model that implements this strategy and applied it to three quantitative traits (startle response, starvation resistance, and chill coma recovery) in the unrelated, sequenced inbred lines of the Drosophila melanogaster Genetic Reference Panel. Our results indicate that subsetting markers based on genomic features increases the predictive ability relative to the standard genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) model. Both models use all markers, but GFBLUP allows differential weighting of the individual genetic marker relationships, whereas GBLUP weighs the genetic marker relationships equally. Simulation studies show that it is possible to further increase the accuracy of genomic prediction for complex traits using this model, provided the genomic features are enriched for causal variants. Our GFBLUP model using prior information on genomic features enriched for causal variants can increase the accuracy of genomic predictions in populations of unrelated individuals and provides a formal statistical framework for leveraging and evaluating information across multiple experimental studies to provide novel insights into the genetic architecture of complex traits.

Indexed as

Gene OntologyGenetic MarkersGenomicsAnimalsDrosophila melanogasterGenome, InsectGenotypePhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociGenetic Markersbest linear unbiased predictionchill coma recovery timeDrosophila Genetic Reference Populationgenomic feature modelsgenomic selectionGenPredshared data resourcestartle responsestarvation resistance

Identifiers

PMID27235308
PMCPMC4981283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.