Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30239746›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2018

Characterization of copy number variants in a large multibreed population of beef and dairy cattle using high-density single nucleotide polymorphism genotype data.

Pierce Rafter, Deirdre C Purfield, Donagh P Berry, Andrew C Parnell, I Claire Gormley, J Francis Kearney, Mike P Coffey, Tara R Carthy

Open access · bronzeAbstract 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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Pierce RafterTeagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Deirdre C PurfieldTeagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Donagh P BerryTeagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Andrew C ParnellUCD School of Mathematics and Statistics, Insight Centre for Data Analytics, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
I Claire GormleyUCD School of Mathematics and Statistics, Insight Centre for Data Analytics, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland.
J Francis KearneyICBF, Highfield House, Shinagh, Bandon, Co.Cork, Ireland.
Mike P CoffeyAnimal and Veterinary Sciences, SRUC, Roslin Institute Building, Easter Bush, Midlothian EH25 9RG.
Tara R CarthyTeagasc, Animal and Grassland Research and Innovation Centre, Moorepark, Fermoy, Co. Cork, Ireland.
Teagasc - The Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority · IEUniversity College Dublin · IEBon Secours Hospital Cork · IERoslin Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Copy number variants (CNVs) are a form of genomic variation that changes the structure of the genome through deletion or duplication of stretches of DNA. The objective of the present study was to characterize CNVs in a large multibreed population of beef and dairy bulls. The CNVs were called on the autosomes of 5,551 cattle from 22 different beef and dairy breeds, using 2 freely available software suites, QuantiSNP and PennCNV. All CNVs were classified into either deletions or duplications. The median concordance between PennCNV and QuantiSNP, per animal, was 18.5% for deletions and 0% for duplications. The low concordance rate between PennCNV and QuantiSNP indicated that neither algorithm, by itself, could identify all CNVs in the population. In total, PennCNV and QuantiSNP collectively identified 747,129 deletions and 432,523 duplications; 80.2% of all duplications and 69.1% of all deletions were present only once in the population. Only 0.154% of all CNVs identified were present in more than 50 animals in the population. The distribution of the percentage of the autosomes that were composed of deletions, per animal, was positively skewed, as was the distribution for the percentage of the autosomes that were composed of duplications, per animal. The first quartile, median, and third quartile of the distribution of the percentage of the autosomes that were composed of deletions were 0.019%, 0.037%, and 0.201%, respectively. The first quartile, median, and third quartile of the distribution of the percentage of the autosomes that were composed of duplications were 0.013%, 0.028%, and 0.076%, respectively. The distributions of the number of deletions and duplications per animal were both positively skewed. The interquartile range for the number of deletions per animal in the population was between 16 and 117, whereas for duplications it was between 8 and 23. Per animal, there tended to be twice as many deletions as duplications. The distribution of the length of deletions was positively skewed, as was the distribution of the length of duplications. The interquartile range for the length of deletions in the population was between 25 and 101 kb, and for duplications the interquartile range was between 46 and 235 kb. Per animal, duplications tended to be twice as long as deletions. This study provides a description of the characteristics and distribution of CNVs in a large multibreed population of beef and dairy cattle.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAnimalsCattleDNA Copy Number VariationsGenomeGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsGenotypeHumansMalePolymorphism, Single NucleotideRed MeatSoftware

Identifiers

PMID30239746
PMCPMC6162625
OpenAlexW2890562726

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.