Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28093065›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2017

Comparison of alternative approaches to single-trait genomic prediction using genotyped and non-genotyped Hanwoo beef cattle.

Joonho Lee, Hao Cheng, Dorian Garrick, Bruce Golden, Jack Dekkers, Kyungdo Park, Deukhwan Lee, Rohan Fernando

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

26 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Genomic Prediction in Local Breeds: The Rendena Cattle as a Case Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  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

8 authors.

Joonho LeeDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0099-6907
Hao ChengDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.
Dorian GarrickDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.
Bruce GoldenThetaSolutions, LLC, Atascadero, CA, USA.
Jack DekkersDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA.
Kyungdo ParkDepartment of Animal Biotechnology, Chonbuk National University, Chonju, Jeollabuk-do, South Korea.
Deukhwan LeeDepartment of Animal Science, Hankyong National University, Anseong, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea.
Rohan FernandoDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, USA. rohan@iastate.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5821-099X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic predictions from BayesA and BayesB use training data that include animals with both phenotypes and genotypes. Single-step methodologies allow additional information from non-genotyped relatives to be included in the analysis. The single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (SSGBLUP) method uses a relationship matrix computed from marker and pedigree information, in which missing genotypes are imputed implicitly. Single-step Bayesian regression (SSBR) extends SSGBLUP to BayesB-like models using explicitly imputed genotypes for non-genotyped individuals.

methodsCarcass records included 988 genotyped Hanwoo steers with 35,882 SNPs and 1438 non-genotyped steers that were measured for back-fat thickness (BFT), carcass weight (CWT), eye-muscle area, and marbling score (MAR). Single-trait pedigree-based BLUP, Bayesian methods using only genotyped individuals, SSGBLUP and SSBR methods were compared using cross-validation.

resultsMethods using genomic information always outperformed pedigree-based BLUP when the same phenotypic data were modeled from either genotyped individuals only or both genotyped and non-genotyped individuals. For BFT and MAR, accuracies were higher with single-step methods than with BayesB, BayesC and BayesCπ. Gains in accuracy with the single-step methods ranged from +0.06 to +0.09 for BFT and from +0.05 to +0.07 for MAR. For CWT, SSBR always outperformed the corresponding Bayesian methods that used only genotyped individuals. However, although SSGBLUP incorporated information from non-genotyped individuals, prediction accuracies were lower with SSGBLUP than with BayesC (π = 0.9999) and BayesB (π = 0.98) for CWT because, for this particular trait, there was a benefit from the mixture priors of the effects of the single nucleotide polymorphisms.

conclusionsSingle-step methods are the preferred approaches for prediction combining genotyped and non-genotyped animals. Alternative priors allow SSBR to outperform SSGBLUP in some cases.

Indexed as

GenomeGenomicsGenotypeModels, GeneticQuantitative Trait, HeritableAnimalsBayes TheoremCattleGenetic Association StudiesGenome-Wide Association StudyModels, StatisticalPhenotypeReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID28093065
PMCPMC5240330

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.