ArticleAsian-Australasian journal of animal sciences2019
Effects of preselection of genotyped animals on reliability and bias of genomic prediction in dairy cattle.
Article in Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating Adjusted ssGBLUP Models for Genomic Prediction and Matrix Compatibility in South African Holstein Cattle.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- The Effect of Preselection on the Level of Bias and Accuracy in a Broiler Breeder Population, a Simulation Study.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveModels for genomic selection assume that the reference population is an unselected population. However, in practice, genotyped individuals, such as progeny-tested bulls, are highly selected, and the reference population is created after preselection. In dairy cattle, the intensity of selection is higher in males than in females, suggesting that cows can be added to the reference population with less bias and loss of accuracy. The objective is to develop formulas applied to any genomic prediction studies or practice with preselected animals as reference population.
methodsWe developed formulas for calculating the reliability and bias of genomically enhanced breeding values (GEBV) in the reference population where individuals are preselected on estimated breeding values. Based on the formulas presented, deterministic simulation was conducted by varying heritability, preselection percentage, and the reference population size.
resultsThe number of bulls equal to a cow regarding the reliability of GEBV was expressed through a simple formula for the reference population consisting of preselected animals. The bull population was vastly superior to the cow population regarding the reliability of GEBV for low-heritability traits. However, the superiority of reliability from the bull reference population over the cow population decreased as heritability increased. Bias was greater for bulls than cows. Bias and reduction in reliability of GEBV due to preselection was alleviated by expanding reference population.
conclusionCows are easier in expanding reference population size compared with bulls and alleviate bias and reduction in reliability of GEBV of bulls which are highly preselected than cows by expanding the cow reference population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.