Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29374456›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2018

Inbreeding and runs of homozygosity before and after genomic selection in North American Holstein cattle.

Mehrnush Forutan, Saeid Ansari Mahyari, Christine Baes, Nina Melzer, Flavio Schramm Schenkel, Mehdi Sargolzaei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 86 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
86citing 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

86 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Population Differentiation and Polygenic Selection in the Finnish Ayrshire Cows Selected on Genomic Information.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Restructuring breeding programs 1: Integration of diversity.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026
    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

26 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Mehrnush ForutanDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Khomeyni Shahr, Iran. mforutan@uoguelph.ca.ORCID 0000-0002-8145-1035
Saeid Ansari MahyariDepartment of Animal Science, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of Technology, Khomeyni Shahr, Iran. s.ansari@cc.iut.ac.ir.
Christine BaesCentre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.
Nina MelzerInstitute of Genetics and Biometry, Leibniz Institute for Farm Animal Biology, Dummerstorf, Germany.
Flavio Schramm SchenkelCentre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.
Mehdi SargolzaeiCentre for Genetic Improvement of Livestock, Department of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada.

Funding

Dairy Research Cluster Initiative 051573
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile autozygosity as a consequence of selection is well understood, there is limited information on the ability of different methods to measure true inbreeding. In the present study, a gene dropping simulation was performed and inbreeding estimates based on runs of homozygosity (ROH), pedigree, and the genomic relationship matrix were compared to true inbreeding. Inbreeding based on ROH was estimated using SNP1101, PLINK, and BCFtools software with different threshold parameters. The effects of different selection methods on ROH patterns were also compared. Furthermore, inbreeding coefficients were estimated in a sample of genotyped North American Holstein animals born from 1990 to 2016 using 50 k chip data and ROH patterns were assessed before and after genomic selection.

resultsUsing ROH with a minimum window size of 20 to 50 using SNP1101 provided the closest estimates to true inbreeding in simulation study. Pedigree inbreeding tended to underestimate true inbreeding, and results for genomic inbreeding varied depending on assumptions about base allele frequencies. Using an ROH approach also made it possible to assess the effect of population structure and selection on distribution of runs of autozygosity across the genome. In the simulation, the longest individual ROH and the largest average length of ROH were observed when selection was based on best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP), whereas genomic selection showed the largest number of small ROH compared to BLUP estimated breeding values (BLUP-EBV). In North American Holsteins, the average number of ROH segments of 1 Mb or more per individual increased from 57 in 1990 to 82 in 2016. The rate of increase in the last 5 years was almost double that of previous 5 year periods. Genomic selection results in less autozygosity per generation, but more per year given the reduced generation interval.

conclusionsThis study shows that existing software based on the measurement of ROH can accurately identify autozygosity across the genome, provided appropriate threshold parameters are used. Our results show how different selection strategies affect the distribution of ROH, and how the distribution of ROH has changed in the North American dairy cattle population over the last 25 years.

Indexed as

HomozygoteInbreedingSelection, GeneticAnimalsCattleFemaleGene FrequencyGenomeMaleNorth AmericaPedigreePolymorphism, Single NucleotidePopulation DynamicsBLUP selectionGenomic selectionInbreedingRuns of homozygosity

Identifiers

PMID29374456
PMCPMC5787230

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.