Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27905878›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2016

Genomic prediction using preselected DNA variants from a GWAS with whole-genome sequence data in Holstein-Friesian cattle.

Roel F Veerkamp, Aniek C Bouwman, Chris Schrooten, Mario P L Calus

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

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
66citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

6 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Roel F VeerkampAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Roel.Veerkamp@wur.nl.ORCID 0000-0002-5240-6534
Aniek C BouwmanAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Chris SchrootenCRV BV, P.O. Box 454, 6800 AL, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Mario P L CalusAnimal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole-genome sequence data is expected to capture genetic variation more completely than common genotyping panels. Our objective was to compare the proportion of variance explained and the accuracy of genomic prediction by using imputed sequence data or preselected SNPs from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) with imputed whole-genome sequence data.

methodsPhenotypes were available for 5503 Holstein-Friesian bulls. Genotypes were imputed up to whole-genome sequence (13,789,029 segregating DNA variants) by using run 4 of the 1000 bull genomes project. The program GCTA was used to perform GWAS for protein yield (PY), somatic cell score (SCS) and interval from first to last insemination (IFL). From the GWAS, subsets of variants were selected and genomic relationship matrices (GRM) were used to estimate the variance explained in 2087 validation animals and to evaluate the genomic prediction ability. Finally, two GRM were fitted together in several models to evaluate the effect of selected variants that were in competition with all the other variants.

resultsThe GRM based on full sequence data explained only marginally more genetic variation than that based on common SNP panels: for PY, SCS and IFL, genomic heritability improved from 0.81 to 0.83, 0.83 to 0.87 and 0.69 to 0.72, respectively. Sequence data also helped to identify more variants linked to quantitative trait loci and resulted in clearer GWAS peaks across the genome. The proportion of total variance explained by the selected variants combined in a GRM was considerably smaller than that explained by all variants (less than 0.31 for all traits). When selected variants were used, accuracy of genomic predictions decreased and bias increased.

conclusionsAlthough 35 to 42 variants were detected that together explained 13 to 19% of the total variance (18 to 23% of the genetic variance) when fitted alone, there was no advantage in using dense sequence information for genomic prediction in the Holstein data used in our study. Detection and selection of variants within a single breed are difficult due to long-range linkage disequilibrium. Stringent selection of variants resulted in more biased genomic predictions, although this might be due to the training population being the same dataset from which the selected variants were identified.

Indexed as

Genetic VariationGenomeGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsAnimalsBreedingCattleGenotypeHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingLinkage DisequilibriumPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID27905878
PMCPMC5134274

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.