Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30304409›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2019

Inbreeding depression in line 1 Hereford cattle population using pedigree and genomic information.

Pattarapol Sumreddee, Sajjad Toghiani, El Hamidi Hay, Andrew Roberts, Samuel E Agrrey, Romdhane Rekaya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Detecting inbreeding depression in structured populations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Relationship between inbreeding and milk production traits in two Italian dairy sheep breeds.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Pattarapol SumreddeeDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Sajjad ToghianiDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
El Hamidi HayUSDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, MT.
Andrew RobertsUSDA Agricultural Research Service, Fort Keogh Livestock and Range Research Laboratory, Miles City, MT.
Samuel E AgrreyDepartment of Poultry Science, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Romdhane RekayaDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, The University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
University of Georgia · USAgricultural Research Service · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed at assessing inbreeding and its effect on growth and fertility traits using the longtime closed line 1 Hereford cattle population. Inbreeding was estimated based on pedigree (FPED) and genomic information. For the latter, three estimates were derived based on the diagonal elements of the genomic relationship matrix using estimated (FGRM) or fixed (FGRM0.5) minor allele frequencies or runs of homozygosity (ROH) (FROH). A pedigree containing 10,186 animals was used to calculate FPED. Genomic inbreeding was evaluated using 785 animals genotyped for 30,810 SNP. Traits analyzed were birth weight (BWT), weaning weight (WWT), yearling weight (YWT), ADG, and age at first calving (AFC). The number of ROH per animal ranged between 6 and 119 segments with an average of 83. The shortest and longest segments were 1.36 and 64.86 Mb long, respectively, reflecting both ancient and recent inbreeding occurring in the last 30 to 40 generations. The average inbreeding was 29.2%, 16.1%, 30.2%, and 22.9% for FPED, FGRM, FGRM0.5, and FROH, respectively. FROH provided the highest correlations with FPED (r = 0.66). Across paternal half-sib families, with minimal variation in FPED, there were substantial variations in their genomic inbreeding. Inbreeding depression analyses showed that a 1% increase in an animal's FPED resulted in a decrease of 1.20 kg, 2.03 kg, and 0.004 kg/d in WWT, YWT, and ADG, respectively. Maternal inbreeding showed significantly negative effects on progeny growth performance. AFC increased by 1.4 and 0.8 d for each 1% increase in FPED of the cow and her dam, respectively. Using genomic inbreeding, similar impact on growth traits was observed although the magnitude of the effect varied between methods. Across all genomic measures, WWT, YWT, and ADG decreased by 0.21 to 0.53 kg, 0.46 to 1.13 kg, and 0.002 to 0.006 kg/d for each 1% increase in genomic inbreeding, respectively. Four chromosomes (9, 12, 17, and 27) were identified to have a significant association between their homozygosity (FROH-CHR) and growth traits. Variability in genomic inbreeding could be useful when deciding between full and half-sib selection candidates. Despite the high level of inbreeding in this study, its negative impact on growth performance was not as severe as expected, which may be attributed to the purging of the deleterious alleles due to natural or artificial selection over time.

Indexed as

GenomicsInbreeding DepressionAllelesAnimalsBirth WeightCattleFemaleFertilityGene FrequencyGenotypeHomozygoteInbreedingMalePedigreePhenotypeWeaning

Identifiers

PMID30304409
PMCPMC6313130
OpenAlexW2896150145

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.