Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27623617›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2016

Genomic prediction using models with dominance and imprinting effects for backfat thickness and average daily gain in Danish Duroc pigs.

Xiangyu Guo, Ole Fredslund Christensen, Tage Ostersen, Yachun Wang, Mogens Sandø Lund, Guosheng Su

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evolutionary and Expression Analysis of the Pig MAGE Gene Family.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Genomic Prediction Methods Accounting for Nonadditive Genetic Effects.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Non-additive Effects in Genomic Selection.Frontiers in genetics · 2018
    Review
  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

6 authors.

Xiangyu GuoCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Ole Fredslund ChristensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Tage OstersenDanish Pig Research Centre, SEGES P/S, 1609, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Yachun WangCollege of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, People's Republic of China.
Mogens Sandø LundCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Guosheng SuCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark. Guosheng.Su@mbg.au.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDominance and imprinting genetic effects have been shown to contribute to genetic variance for certain traits but are usually ignored in genomic prediction of complex traits in livestock. The objectives of this study were to estimate variances of additive, dominance and imprinting genetic effects and to evaluate predictions of genetic merit based on genomic data for average daily gain (DG) and backfat thickness (BF) in Danish Duroc pigs.

methodsCorrected phenotypes of 8113 genotyped pigs from breeding and multiplier herds were used. Four Bayesian mixture models that differed in the type of genetic effects included: (A) additive genetic effects, (AD) additive and dominance genetic effects, (AI) additive and imprinting genetic effects, and (ADI) additive, dominance and imprinting genetic effects were compared using Bayes factors. The ability of the models to predict genetic merit was compared with regard to prediction reliability and bias.

resultsBased on model ADI, narrow-sense heritabilities of 0.18 and 0.31 were estimated for DG and BF, respectively. Dominance and imprinting genetic effects accounted for 4.0 to 4.6 and 1.3 to 1.4 % of phenotypic variance, respectively, which were statistically significant. Across the four models, reliabilities of the predicted total genetic values (GTV, sum of all genetic effects) ranged from 16.1 (AI) to 18.4 % (AD) for DG and from 30.1 (AI) to 31.4 % (ADI) for BF. The least biased predictions of GTV were obtained with model AD, with regression coefficients of corrected phenotypes on GTV equal to 0.824 (DG) and 0.738 (BF). Reliabilities of genomic estimated breeding values (GBV, additive genetic effects) did not differ significantly among models for DG (between 16.5 and 16.7 %); however, for BF, model AD provided a significantly higher reliability (31.3 %) than model A (30.7 %). The least biased predictions of GBV were obtained with model AD with regression coefficients of 0.872 for DG and 0.764 for BF.

conclusionsDominance and genomic imprinting effects contribute significantly to the genetic variation of BF and DG in Danish Duroc pigs. Genomic prediction models that include dominance genetic effects can improve accuracy and reduce bias of genomic predictions of genetic merit.

Indexed as

Genes, DominantGenomic ImprintingModels, GeneticAnimalsBody WeightFemaleGenomicsInheritance PatternsMalePedigreePolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of ResultsSubcutaneous FatSwine

Identifiers

PMID27623617
PMCPMC5022243

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.