Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29228899›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2017

Use and optimization of different sources of information for genomic prediction.

Joanna J Ilska, Theo H E Meuwissen, Andreas Kranis, John A Woolliams

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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Combining pedigree and genomic information to improve prediction quality: an example in sorghum.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2019
    Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Joanna J IlskaRoslin Institute (Edinburgh), Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK. Joanna.ilska@gmail.com.
Theo H E MeuwissenDepartment of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, Norway.
Andreas KranisRoslin Institute (Edinburgh), Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.
John A WoolliamsRoslin Institute (Edinburgh), Easter Bush, Midlothian, EH25 9RG, UK.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council 1061485Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/D/20211554
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMolecular data is now commonly used to predict breeding values (BV). Various methods to calculate genomic relationship matrices (GRM) have been developed, with some studies proposing regression of coefficients back to the reference matrix of pedigree-based relationship coefficients (A). The objective was to compare the utility of two GRM: a matrix based on linkage analysis (LA) and anchored to the pedigree, i.e. [Formula: see text] and a matrix based on linkage disequilibrium (LD), i.e. [Formula: see text], using genomic and phenotypic data collected on 5416 broiler chickens. Furthermore, the effects of regressing the coefficients of [Formula: see text] back to A (LDA) and to [Formula: see text] (LDLA) were evaluated, using a range of weighting factors. The performance of the matrices and their composite products was assessed by the fit of the models to the data, and the empirical accuracy and bias of the BV that they predicted. The sensitivity to marker choice was examined by using two chips of equal density but including different single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).

resultsThe likelihood of models using GRM and composite matrices exceeded the likelihood of models based on pedigree alone and was highest with intermediate weighting factors for both the LDA and LDLA approaches. For these data, empirical accuracies were not strongly affected by the weighting factors, although they were highest when different sources of information were combined. The optimum weighting factors depended on the type of matrices used, as well as on the choice of SNPs from which the GRM were constructed. Prediction bias was strongly affected by the chip used and less by the form of the GRM.

conclusionsOur findings provide an empirical comparison of the efficacy of pedigree and genomic predictions in broiler chickens and examine the effects of fitting GRM with coefficients regressed back to a reference anchored to the pedigree, either A or [Formula: see text]. For the analysed dataset, the best results were obtained when [Formula: see text] was combined with relationships in A or [Formula: see text], with optimum weighting factors that depended on the choice of SNPs used. The optimum weighting factor for broiler body weight differed from weighting factors that were based on the density of SNPs and theoretically derived using generalised assumptions.

Indexed as

BreedingModels, GeneticAnimalsBody WeightChickensFemaleGenomeGenomicsLinkage DisequilibriumMalePedigreePhenotypePolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID29228899
PMCPMC5725675

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.