Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28841821›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2017

Influence of epistasis on response to genomic selection using complete sequence data.

Natalia S Forneris, Zulma G Vitezica, Andres Legarra, Miguel Pérez-Enciso

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 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Improvement of genomic prediction in advanced wheat breeding lines by including additive-by-additive epistasis.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022
    Article
  6. The somatic molecular evolution of cancer: Mutation, selection, and epistasis.Progress in biophysics and molecular biology · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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

4 authors.

Natalia S FornerisCentre for Research in Agricultural Genomics (CRAG), CSIC-IRTA-UAB-UB Consortium, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. forneris@agro.uba.ar.
Zulma G VitezicaGenPhySE, INRA, INPT, ENVT, Université de Toulouse, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Andres LegarraGenPhySE, INRA, INPT, ENVT, Université de Toulouse, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Miguel Pérez-EncisoCentre for Research in Agricultural Genomics (CRAG), CSIC-IRTA-UAB-UB Consortium, 08193, Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain. miguel.perez@uab.es.ORCID 0000-0003-3524-995X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effect of epistasis on response to selection is a highly debated topic. Here, we investigated the impact of epistasis on response to sequence-based selection via genomic best linear prediction (GBLUP) in a regime of strong non-symmetrical epistasis under divergent selection, using real Drosophila sequence data. We also explored the possible advantage of including epistasis in the evaluation model and/or of knowing the causal mutations.

resultsResponse to selection was almost exclusively due to changes in allele frequency at a few loci with a large effect. Response was highly asymmetric (about four phenotypic standard deviations higher for upward than downward selection) due to the highly skewed site frequency spectrum. Epistasis accentuated this asymmetry and affected response to selection by modulating the additive genetic variance, which was sustained for longer under upward selection whereas it eroded rapidly under downward selection. Response to selection was quite insensitive to the evaluation model, especially under an additive scenario. Nevertheless, including epistasis in the model when there was none eventually led to lower accuracies as selection proceeded. Accounting for epistasis in the model, if it existed, was beneficial but only in the medium term. There was not much gain in response if causal mutations were known, compared to using sequence data, which is likely due to strong linkage disequilibrium, high heritability and availability of phenotypes on candidates.

conclusionsEpistatic interactions affect the response to genomic selection by modulating the additive genetic variance used for selection. Epistasis releases additive variance that may increase response to selection compared to a pure additive genetic action. Furthermore, genomic evaluation models and, in particular, GBLUP are robust, i.e. adding complexity to the model did not modify substantially the response (for a given architecture).

Indexed as

Epistasis, GeneticModels, GeneticSelection, GeneticAnimalsDatabases, GeneticDrosophilaGenome

Identifiers

PMID28841821
PMCPMC5574158

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.