ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2017
Metafounders are related to F
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 46 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
46 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Multi-Breed Genomic Prediction Models for Carcass and Reproductive Traits in Zebu Beef Cattle.Animal genetics · 2026Article
- Implementation of Metafounders in the Genomic Prediction for the Polled Trait in Brahman Cattle Using a Multi-Breed Population.Animal genetics · 2026Article
- Use of Cluster Analysis for Identifying Metafounders.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026Article
- Genomic selection strategies and their potential to maintain rare alleles and de-novo mutations: a long-term assessment.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
- Computing inbreeding coefficients accounting for unknown parents using pedigree-based metafounders.JDS communications · 2026Article
- Genomic estimates of Identity-By-Descent relationships in large scale data sets.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
- Study of Genetic Progress in the Context of Disconnection Between Two Originally Connected Populations.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026Article
- Genomic Evaluation in Nellore Cattle for Reproductive Traits: Multiple Ways to Account for Missing Pedigrees.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026Article
- Comparison between repeatability, reproductive stage stratified repeatability, and relative risk models for prediction of breeding values for functional survival in rotationally crossbred sows.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Shared SNP effects across breeds increase the genomic prediction accuracy for numerically small breeds.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Combining genomics and semen microbiome increases the accuracy of predicting bull prolificacy.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025Article
- Strategies for genomic predictions of an indicine multi-breed population using single-step GBLUP.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025Article
- Weighted single step GWAS reveals genomic regions associated with economic traits in Murrah buffaloes.Animal biotechnology · 2024Article
- Combined genomic evaluation of Merino and Dohne Merino Australian sheep populations.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024Article
- Definition of metafounders based on population structure analysis.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024Article
- Estimating genomic relationships of metafounders across and within breeds using maximum likelihood, pseudo-expectation-maximization maximum likelihood and increase of relationships.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024Article
- Redefining and interpreting genomic relationships of metafounders.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024Article
- Combining large broiler populations into a single genomic evaluation: dealing with genetic divergence.Journal of animal science · 2024Article
- Genomic evaluation for two-way crossbred performance in cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Reliabilities of estimated breeding values in models with metafounders.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMetafounders are pseudo-individuals that encapsulate genetic heterozygosity and relationships within and across base pedigree populations, i.e. ancestral populations. This work addresses the estimation and usefulness of metafounder relationships in single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP).
resultsWe show that ancestral relationship parameters are proportional to standardized covariances of base allelic frequencies across populations, such as [Formula: see text] fixation indexes. These covariances of base allelic frequencies can be estimated from marker genotypes of related recent individuals and pedigree. Simple methods for their estimation include naïve computation of allele frequencies from marker genotypes or a method of moments that equates average pedigree-based and marker-based relationships. Complex methods include generalized least squares (best linear unbiased estimator (BLUE)) or maximum likelihood based on pedigree relationships. To our knowledge, methods to infer [Formula: see text] coefficients from marker data have not been developed for related individuals. We derived a genomic relationship matrix, compatible with pedigree relationships, that is constructed as a cross-product of {-1,0,1} codes and that is equivalent (apart from scale factors) to an identity-by-state relationship matrix at genome-wide markers. Using a simulation with a single population under selection in which only males and youngest animals are genotyped, we observed that generalized least squares or maximum likelihood gave accurate and unbiased estimates of the ancestral relationship parameter (true value: 0.40) whereas the naïve method and the method of moments were biased (average estimates of 0.43 and 0.35). We also observed that genomic evaluation by ssGBLUP using metafounders was less biased in terms of estimates of genetic trend (bias of 0.01 instead of 0.12), resulted in less overdispersed (0.94 instead of 0.99) and as accurate (0.74) estimates of breeding values than ssGBLUP without metafounders and provided consistent estimates of heritability.
conclusionsEstimation of metafounder relationships can be achieved using BLUP-like methods with pedigree and markers. Inclusion of metafounder relationships reduces bias of genomic predictions with no loss in accuracy.
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.