Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29167557›Full record

ArticleHeredity2018

Factors affecting GEBV accuracy with single-step Bayesian models.

Lei Zhou, Raphael Mrode, Shengli Zhang, Qin Zhang, Bugao Li, Jian-Feng Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Genomic selection for morphological and yield-related traits using genome-wide SNPs in oil palm.Molecular breeding : new strategies in plant improvement · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Genome-based prediction of agronomic traits in spring wheat under conventional and organic management systems.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

6 authors.

Lei ZhouNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding; Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture; College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Raphael MrodeAnimal Biosciences, International Livestock Institute, Nairobi, 00100, Kenya.
Shengli ZhangNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding; Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture; College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Qin ZhangNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding; Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture; College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Bugao LiDepartment of Animal Sciences and Veterinary Medicine, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, 030801, China.
Jian-Feng LiuNational Engineering Laboratory for Animal Breeding; Key Laboratory of Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction, Ministry of Agriculture; College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China. liujf@cau.edu.cn.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A single-step approach to obtain genomic prediction was first proposed in 2009. Many studies have investigated the components of GEBV accuracy in genomic selection. However, it is still unclear how the population structure and the relationships between training and validation populations influence GEBV accuracy in terms of single-step analysis. Here, we explored the components of GEBV accuracy in single-step Bayesian analysis with a simulation study. Three scenarios with various numbers of QTL (5, 50, and 500) were simulated. Three models were implemented to analyze the simulated data: single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP; SSGBLUP), single-step BayesA (SS-BayesA), and single-step BayesB (SS-BayesB). According to our results, GEBV accuracy was influenced by the relationships between the training and validation populations more significantly for ungenotyped animals than for genotyped animals. SS-BayesA/BayesB showed an obvious advantage over SSGBLUP with the scenarios of 5 and 50 QTL. SS-BayesB model obtained the lowest accuracy with the 500 QTL in the simulation. SS-BayesA model was the most efficient and robust considering all QTL scenarios. Generally, both the relationships between training and validation populations and LD between markers and QTL contributed to GEBV accuracy in the single-step analysis, and the advantages of single-step Bayesian models were more apparent when the trait is controlled by fewer QTL.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremBreedingModels, GeneticAnimalsGenomicsGenotypeLinkage DisequilibriumPhenotypeQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID29167557
PMCPMC5837114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.