ArticleBMC genetics2017
Genomic predictions for economically important traits in Brazilian Braford and Hereford beef cattle using true and imputed genotypes.
Article in BMC genetics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetics of growth resilience- and uniformity-related indicators derived from sparse body weight data in Angus-Brangus cattle under (sub)tropical conditions.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
- Genomic prediction for growth using a low-density SNP panel in dromedary camels.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Accuracies of Genomic Prediction for Growth Traits at Weaning and Yearling Ages in Yak.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Comparing Alternative Single-Step GBLUP Approaches and Training Population Designs for Genomic Evaluation of Crossbred Animals.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Network analysis uncovers putative genes affecting resistance to tick infestation in Braford cattle skin.BMC genomics · 2019Article
- Genetic Improvement in South African Livestock: Can Genomics Bridge the Gap Between the Developed and Developing Sectors?Frontiers in genetics · 2018Review
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
backgroundGenomic selection (GS) has played an important role in cattle breeding programs. However, genotyping prices are still a challenge for implementation of GS in beef cattle and there is still a lack of information about the use of low-density Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) chip panels for genomic predictions in breeds such as Brazilian Braford and Hereford. Therefore, this study investigated the effect of using imputed genotypes in the accuracy of genomic predictions for twenty economically important traits in Brazilian Braford and Hereford beef cattle. Various scenarios composed by different percentages of animals with imputed genotypes and different sizes of the training population were compared. De-regressed EBVs (estimated breeding values) were used as pseudo-phenotypes in a Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (GBLUP) model using two different mimicked panels derived from the 50 K (8 K and 15 K SNP panels), which were subsequently imputed to the 50 K panel. In addition, genomic prediction accuracies generated from a 777 K SNP (imputed from the 50 K SNP) were presented as another alternate scenario.
resultsThe accuracy of genomic breeding values averaged over the twenty traits ranged from 0.38 to 0.40 across the different scenarios. The average losses in expected genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) accuracy (accuracy obtained from the inverse of the mixed model equations) relative to the true 50 K genotypes ranged from -0.0007 to -0.0012 and from -0.0002 to -0.0005 when using the 50 K imputed from the 8 K or 15 K, respectively. When using the imputed 777 K panel the average losses in expected GEBV accuracy was -0.0021. The average gain in expected EBVs accuracy by including genomic information when compared to simple BLUP was between 0.02 and 0.03 across scenarios and traits.
conclusionsThe percentage of animals with imputed genotypes in the training population did not significantly influence the validation accuracy. However, the size of the training population played a major role in the accuracies of genomic predictions in this population. The losses in the expected accuracies of GEBV due to imputation of genotypes were lower when using the 50 K SNP chip panel imputed from the 15 K compared to the one imputed from the 8 K SNP chip panel.
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.