ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2016
Genomic evaluation by including dominance effects and inbreeding depression for purebred and crossbred performance with an application in 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 45 papers.
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
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- Powerful one-dimensional scan to detect heterotic quantitative trait loci.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Genomic Predicted cross performance: a tool for optimizing parental combinations in breeding programs.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Article
- Inbreeding patterns and genetic diversity under selection in Teha sheep.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- A Dominance Hypothesis Argument for Historical Genetic Gains and the Fixation of Heterosis in Octoploid Strawberry.Genetics · 2024Article
- Genomic prediction and genome-wide association study using combined genotypic data from different genotyping systems: application to apple fruit quality traits.Horticulture research · 2024Article
- MAGE: metafounders-assisted genomic estimation of breeding value, a novel additive-dominance single-step model in crossbreeding systems.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Investigating the impact of non-additive genetic effects in the estimation of variance components and genomic predictions for heat tolerance and performance traits in crossbred and purebred pig populations.BMC genomic data · 2023Article
- Pervasive under-dominance in gene expression underlying emergent growth trajectories in Arabidopsis thaliana hybrids.Genome biology · 2023Article
- Genomic selection strategies for clonally propagated crops.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2023Article
- 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
- Evaluation of Breeding Values and Variance Components of Birth and Weaning Weights in the Holstein Cows Herd Based on Genetic Information.Archives of Razi Institute · 2022Article
- Estimate of inbreeding depression on growth and reproductive traits in a Large White pig population.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Estimation of dam line composition of 3-way crossbred animals using genomic information.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022Article
- Article
- Genic and non-genic SNP contributions to additive and dominance genetic effects in purebred and crossbred pig traits.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Computing strategies for multi-population genomic evaluation.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022Article
- Genomic Prediction Methods Accounting for Nonadditive Genetic Effects.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Additive and Dominance Genomic Analysis for Litter Size in Purebred and Crossbred Iberian Pigs.Genes · 2021Article
- Genomic mating in outbred species: predicting cross usefulness with additive and total genetic covariance matrices.Genetics · 2021Article
- Single-step genomic evaluation with metafounders for feed conversion ratio and average daily gain in Danish Landrace and Yorkshire pigs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproved performance of crossbred animals is partly due to heterosis. One of the major genetic bases of heterosis is dominance, but it is seldom used in pedigree-based genetic evaluation of livestock. Recently, a trivariate genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) model including dominance was developed, which can distinguish purebreds from crossbred animals explicitly. The objectives of this study were: (1) methodological, to show that inclusion of marker-based inbreeding accounts for directional dominance and inbreeding depression in purebred and crossbred animals, to revisit variance components of additive and dominance genetic effects using this model, and to develop marker-based estimators of genetic correlations between purebred and crossbred animals and of correlations of allele substitution effects between breeds; (2) to evaluate the impact of accounting for dominance effects and inbreeding depression on predictive ability for total number of piglets born (TNB) in a pig dataset composed of two purebred populations and their crossbreds. We also developed an equivalent model that makes the estimation of variance components tractable.
resultsFor TNB in Danish Landrace and Yorkshire populations and their reciprocal crosses, the estimated proportions of dominance genetic variance to additive genetic variance ranged from 5 to 11%. Genetic correlations between breeding values for purebred and crossbred performances for TNB ranged from 0.79 to 0.95 for Landrace and from 0.43 to 0.54 for Yorkshire across models. The estimated correlation of allele substitution effects between Landrace and Yorkshire was low for purebred performances, but high for crossbred performances. Predictive ability for crossbred animals was similar with or without dominance. The inbreeding depression effect increased predictive ability and the estimated inbreeding depression parameter was more negative for Landrace than for Yorkshire animals and was in between for crossbred animals.
conclusionsMethodological developments led to closed-form estimators of inbreeding depression, variance components and correlations that can be easily interpreted in a quantitative genetics context. Our results confirm that genetic correlations of breeding values between purebred and crossbred performances within breed are positive and moderate. Inclusion of dominance in the GBLUP model does not improve predictive ability for crossbred animals, whereas inclusion of inbreeding depression does.
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.