Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29365164›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2018

Reaction norm for yearling weight in beef cattle using single-step genomic evaluation.

D P Oliveira, D A L Lourenco, S Tsuruta, I Misztal, D J A Santos, F R de Araújo Neto, R R Aspilcueta-Borquis, F Baldi, R Carvalheiro, G M F de Camargo and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  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. Review
  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

12 authors.

D P OliveiraDepartamento of Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University, FCAV, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
D A L LourencoDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
S TsurutaDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
I MisztalDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA.
D J A SantosDepartamento of Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University, FCAV, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
F R de Araújo NetoFederal Institute of Science and Technology Goiano - Campus Rio Verde, Rio Verde-GO Brazil.
R R Aspilcueta-BorquisCollege of Agricultural Sciences, Federal University of Grande Dourados (UFGD), Dourados-MS, Brazil.
F BaldiDepartamento of Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University, FCAV, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
R CarvalheiroDepartamento of Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University, FCAV, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
G M F de CamargoDepartamento of Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University, FCAV, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
L G AlbuquerqueDepartamento of Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University, FCAV, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
H TonhatiDepartamento of Animal Science, Sao Paulo State University, FCAV, Jaboticabal, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When the environment on which the animals are raised is very diverse, selecting the best sires for different environments may require the use of models that account for genotype by environment interaction (G × E). The main objective of this study was to evaluate the existence of G × E for yearling weight (YW) in Nellore cattle using reaction norm models with only pedigree and pedigree combined with genomic relationships. Additionally, genomic regions associated with each environment gradient were identified. A total of 67,996 YW records were used in reaction norm models to calculate EBV and genomic EBV. The method of choice for genomic evaluations was single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP). Traditional and genomic models were tested on the ability to predict future animal performance. Genetic parameters for YW were obtained with the average information restricted maximum likelihood method, with and without adding genomic information for 5,091 animals. Additive genetic variances explained by windows of 200 adjacent SNP were used to identify genomic regions associated with the environmental gradient. Estimated variance components for the intercept and the slope in traditional and genomic models were similar. In both models, the observed changes in heritabilities and genetic correlations for YW across environments indicate the occurrence of genotype by environment interactions. Both traditional and genomic models were capable of identifying the genotype by environment interaction; however, the inclusion of genomic information in reaction norm models improved the ability to predict animals' future performance by 7.9% on average. The proportion of genetic variance explained by the top SNP window was 0.77% for the regression intercept (BTA5) and 0.82% for the slope (BTA14). Single-step GBLUP seems to be a suitable model to predict genetic values for YW in different production environments.

Indexed as

Gene-Environment InteractionGenetic VariationGenomicsModels, GeneticAnimalsBody WeightBreedingCattleFemaleGenotypeMalePedigreePhenotype

Identifiers

PMID29365164
PMCPMC6140843

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.