Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28283016›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2017

Metafounders are related to F

Carolina A Garcia-Baccino, Andres Legarra, Ole F Christensen, Ignacy Misztal, Ivan Pocrnic, Zulma G Vitezica, Rodolfo J C Cantet

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 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Use of Cluster Analysis for Identifying Metafounders.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2026
    Article
  8. 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 · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Combining genomics and semen microbiome increases the accuracy of predicting bull prolificacy.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  12. 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 · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Definition of metafounders based on population structure analysis.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Redefining and interpreting genomic relationships of metafounders.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Genomic evaluation for two-way crossbred performance in cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023
    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

7 authors.

Carolina A Garcia-BaccinoDepartamento de Producción Animal, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, C1417DSE, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Andres LegarraGenPhySE, INRA, INPT, ENVT, Université de Toulouse, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France. andres.legarra@inra.fr.ORCID 0000-0001-8893-7620
Ole F ChristensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Ignacy MisztalAnimal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0382-1897
Ivan PocrnicAnimal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 30602, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5246-7428
Zulma G VitezicaGenPhySE, INRA, INPT, ENVT, Université de Toulouse, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France.ORCID 0000-0002-3162-7258
Rodolfo J C CantetDepartamento de Producción Animal, Facultad de Agronomía, Universidad de Buenos Aires, C1417DSE, Buenos Aires, Argentina.ORCID 0000-0001-6282-146X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AlgorithmsHeterozygotePedigreeAnimalsBiasBreedingGene FrequencyGenome-Wide Association StudyMaleModels, GeneticSelection, Genetic

Identifiers

PMID28283016
PMCPMC5439149

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.