Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27887565›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2016

Genomic evaluation by including dominance effects and inbreeding depression for purebred and crossbred performance with an application in pigs.

Tao Xiang, Ole Fredslund Christensen, Zulma Gladis Vitezica, Andres Legarra

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 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed
–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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genomic selection strategies for clonally propagated crops.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2023
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Computing strategies for multi-population genomic evaluation.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022
    Article
  17. Genomic Prediction Methods Accounting for Nonadditive Genetic Effects.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Tao XiangDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark. Tao.Xiang@mbg.au.dk.ORCID 0000-0001-6134-2627
Ole Fredslund ChristensenDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Zulma Gladis VitezicaINP, ENSAT, GenPhySE, Université de Toulouse, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Andres LegarraUR1388 GenPhySE, INRA, CS-52627, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BreedingCrosses, GeneticGenes, DominantAllelesAnimalsFemaleGenetic MarkersGenomicsInbreeding DepressionInheritance PatternsMaleReproducibility of ResultsSus scrofaGenetic Markers

Identifiers

PMID27887565
PMCPMC5123321

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.