ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2016
Genomic prediction of crossbred performance based on purebred Landrace and Yorkshire data using a dominance model.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Genome-Wide Association Study Meta-Analysis Elucidates Genetic Structure and Identifies Candidate Genes of Teat Number Traits in Pigs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Pooled it
- Genomic Analysis of Reproductive Trait Divergence in Duroc and Yorkshire Pigs: A Comparison of Mixed Models and Selective Sweep Detection.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- MAGE: metafounders-assisted genomic estimation of breeding value, a novel additive-dominance single-step model in crossbreeding systems.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Optimizing purebred selection to improve crossbred performance.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Dominance is common in mammals and is associated with trans-acting gene expression and alternative splicing.Genome biology · 2023Article
- Multibreed genomic prediction using summary statistics and a breed-origin-of-alleles approach.Heredity · 2023Article
- Increasing cassava root yield: Additive-dominant genetic models for selection of parents and clones.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- Breed of origin of alleles and genomic predictions for crossbred dairy cows.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021Article
- Review: optimizing genomic selection for crossbred performance by model improvement and data collection.Journal of animal science · 2021Review
- Genomic Prediction of Average Daily Gain, Back-Fat Thickness, and Loin Muscle Depth Using Different Genomic Tools in Canadian Swine Populations.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Genomic Prediction of Additive and Dominant Effects on Wool and Blood Traits in Alpine Merino Sheep.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2020Article
- Estimating dominance genetic variances for growth traits in American Angus males using genomic models.Journal of animal science · 2020Article
- A Review of Genomic Models for the Analysis of Livestock Crossbred Data.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Review
- Development of a low-density panel for genomic selection of pigs in Russia.Translational animal science · 2020Article
- Machine Learning Prediction of Crossbred Pig Feed Efficiency and Growth Rate From Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Increased Prediction Ability in Norway Spruce Trials Using a Marker X Environment Interaction and Non-Additive Genomic Selection Model.The Journal of heredity · 2019Article
- SNP-based mate allocation strategies to maximize total genetic value in pigs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2019Article
- Evaluation of nonadditive effects in yearling weight of tropical beef cattle.Journal of animal science · 2018Article
- Quantifying genomic connectedness and prediction accuracy from additive and non-additive gene actions.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018Article
- Non-additive Effects in Genomic Selection.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn pig breeding, selection is usually carried out in purebred populations, although the final goal is to improve crossbred performance. Genomic selection can be used to select purebred parental lines for crossbred performance. Dominance is the likely genetic basis of heterosis and explicitly including dominance in the genomic selection model may be an advantage when selecting purebreds for crossbred performance. Our objectives were two-fold: (1) to compare the predictive ability of genomic prediction models with additive or additive plus dominance effects, when the validation criterion is crossbred performance; and (2) to compare the use of two pure line reference populations to a single combined reference population.
methodsWe used data on litter size in the first parity from two pure pig lines (Landrace and Yorkshire) and their reciprocal crosses. Training was performed (1) separately on pure Landrace (2085) and Yorkshire (2145) sows and (2) the two combined pure lines (4230), which were genotyped for 38 k single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Prediction accuracy was measured as the correlation between genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) of pure line boars and mean corrected crossbred-progeny performance, divided by the average accuracy of mean-progeny performance. We evaluated a model with additive effects only (MA) and a model with both additive and dominance effects (MAD). Two types of GEBV were computed: GEBV for purebred performance (GEBV) based on either the MA or MAD models, and GEBV for crossbred performance (GEBV-C) based on the MAD. GEBV-C were calculated based on SNP allele frequencies of genotyped animals in the opposite line.
resultsCompared to MA, MAD improved prediction accuracy for both lines. For MAD, GEBV-C improved prediction accuracy compared to GEBV. For Landrace (Yorkshire) boars, prediction accuracies were equal to 0.11 (0.32) for GEBV based on MA, and 0.13 (0.34) and 0.14 (0.36) for GEBV and GEBV-C based on MAD, respectively. Combining animals from both lines into a single reference population yielded higher accuracies than training on each pure line separately. In conclusion, the use of a dominance model increased the accuracy of genomic predictions of crossbred performance based on purebred data.
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.