Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28797230›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2017

Use of biological priors enhances understanding of genetic architecture and genomic prediction of complex traits within and between dairy cattle breeds.

Lingzhao Fang, Goutam Sahana, Peipei Ma, Guosheng Su, Ying Yu, Shengli Zhang, Mogens Sandø Lund, Peter Sørensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

37 citing papers in PubMed.

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

Lingzhao FangDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark. lingzhao.fang@mbg.au.dk.ORCID 0000-0003-1103-3679
Goutam SahanaDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Peipei MaDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Guosheng SuDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Ying YuKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture & National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Shengli ZhangKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture & National Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Mogens Sandø LundDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Peter SørensenDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA better understanding of the genetic architecture underlying complex traits (e.g., the distribution of causal variants and their effects) may aid in the genomic prediction. Here, we hypothesized that the genomic variants of complex traits might be enriched in a subset of genomic regions defined by genes grouped on the basis of "Gene Ontology" (GO), and that incorporating this independent biological information into genomic prediction models might improve their predictive ability.

resultsFour complex traits (i.e., milk, fat and protein yields, and mastitis) together with imputed sequence variants in Holstein (HOL) and Jersey (JER) cattle were analysed. We first carried out a post-GWAS analysis in a HOL training population to assess the degree of enrichment of the association signals in the gene regions defined by each GO term. We then extended the genomic best linear unbiased prediction model (GBLUP) to a genomic feature BLUP (GFBLUP) model, including an additional genomic effect quantifying the joint effect of a group of variants located in a genomic feature. The GBLUP model using a single random effect assumes that all genomic variants contribute to the genomic relationship equally, whereas GFBLUP attributes different weights to the individual genomic relationships in the prediction equation based on the estimated genomic parameters. Our results demonstrate that the immune-relevant GO terms were more associated with mastitis than milk production, and several biologically meaningful GO terms improved the prediction accuracy with GFBLUP for the four traits, as compared with GBLUP. The improvement of the genomic prediction between breeds (the average increase across the four traits was 0.161) was more apparent than that it was within the HOL (the average increase across the four traits was 0.020).

conclusionsOur genomic feature modelling approaches provide a framework to simultaneously explore the genetic architecture and genomic prediction of complex traits by taking advantage of independent biological knowledge.

Indexed as

DairyingGenomicsAnimalsCattleGene OntologyGenetic VariationGenome-Wide Association StudyMastitis, BovineMilkDairy cattleGene ontologyGenetic architectureGenomic feature modelGenomic predictionMastitisMilk productionPost-GWAS

Identifiers

PMID28797230
PMCPMC5553760

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.