ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2016
Genomic prediction using models with dominance and imprinting effects for backfat thickness and average daily gain in Danish Duroc pigs.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies uncovers shared candidate genes across breeds for pig fatness trait.BMC genomics · 2022Pooled it
- Multi-omics integration reveals Chr1 associated QTL mediating backfat thickness in pigs.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Benchmarking of feed-forward neural network models for genomic prediction of quantitative traits in pigs.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Evolutionary and Expression Analysis of the Pig MAGE Gene Family.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Genomic dissection of additive and non-additive genetic effects and genomic prediction in an open-pollinated family test of Japanese larch.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Impacts of additive, dominance, and inbreeding depression effects on genomic evaluation by combining two SNP chips in Canadian Yorkshire pigs bred in China.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022Article
- Genomic Prediction Methods Accounting for Nonadditive Genetic Effects.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Detection of Genomic Imprinting for Carcass Traits in Cattle Using Imputed High-Density Genotype Data.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Genetic architecture and major genes for backfat thickness in pig lines of diverse genetic backgrounds.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021Article
- Review: optimizing genomic selection for crossbred performance by model improvement and data collection.Journal of animal science · 2021Review
- Estimation of Additive and Dominance Genetic Effects on Body Weight, Carcass and Ham Quality Traits in Heavy Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- The impact of training on data from genetically-related lines on the accuracy of genomic predictions for feed efficiency traits in pigs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2020Article
- A bivariate genomic model with additive, dominance and inbreeding depression effects for sire line and three-way crossbred pigs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2019Article
- Scanning the genomes of parents for imprinted loci acting in their un-genotyped progeny.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Estimation of variance components and prediction of breeding values based on group records from varying group sizes.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018Article
- Genomic evaluation of feed efficiency component traits in Duroc pigs using 80K, 650K and whole-genome sequence variants.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2018Article
- Non-additive Effects in Genomic Selection.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Review
- Comparative analyses of long non-coding RNA in lean and obese pig.Oncotarget · 2017Article
- Dissection of additive, dominance, and imprinting effects for production and reproduction traits in Holstein cattle.BMC genomics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.