ArticleJournal of applied genetics2018
Relevance of genetic relationship in GWAS and genomic prediction.
Article in Journal of applied genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic prediction of wild-derived powdery mildew resistance for strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) pre-breeding.Heredity · 2026Article
- Efficiency of mapping epistatic quantitative trait loci.Heredity · 2023Article
- The impact of epistasis in the heterosis and combining ability analyses.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Significance of linkage disequilibrium and epistasis on genetic variances in noninbred and inbred populations.BMC genomics · 2022Article
- Interpretation of Manhattan Plots and Other Outputs of Genome-Wide Association Studies.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Cassava yield traits predicted by genomic selection methods.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to analyze the relevance of relationship information on the identification of low heritability quantitative trait loci (QTLs) from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and on the genomic prediction of complex traits in human, animal and cross-pollinating populations. The simulation-based data sets included 50 samples of 1000 individuals of seven populations derived from a common population with linkage disequilibrium. The populations had non-inbred and inbred progeny structure (50 to 200) with varying number of members (5 to 20). The individuals were genotyped for 10,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and phenotyped for a quantitative trait controlled by 10 QTLs and 90 minor genes showing dominance. The SNP density was 0.1 cM and the narrow sense heritability was 25%. The QTL heritabilities ranged from 1.1 to 2.9%. We applied mixed model approaches for both GWAS and genomic prediction using pedigree-based and genomic relationship matrices. For GWAS, the observed false discovery rate was kept below the significance level of 5%, the power of detection for the low heritability QTLs ranged from 14 to 50%, and the average bias between significant SNPs and a QTL ranged from less than 0.01 to 0.23 cM. The QTL detection power was consistently higher using genomic relationship matrix. Regardless of population and training set size, genomic prediction provided higher prediction accuracy of complex trait when compared to pedigree-based prediction. The accuracy of genomic prediction when there is relatedness between individuals in the training set and the reference population is much higher than the value for unrelated individuals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29190011What 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.