Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30577727›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2018

Dominance and epistatic genetic variances for litter size in pigs using genomic models.

Zulma G Vitezica, Antonio Reverter, William Herring, Andres Legarra

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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. 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

4 authors.

Zulma G VitezicaINP ENSAT, UMR 1388 GenPhySE, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France. zulma.vitezica@ensat.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3162-7258
Antonio ReverterCSIRO Agriculture and Food, 306 Carmody Rd., St Lucia, QLD, 4067, Australia.
William HerringPIC North America, Hendersonville, TN, 37075, USA.
Andres LegarraINRA, UMR 1388 GenPhySE, 31326, Castanet-Tolosan, France.

Funding

INRA SELGEN metaprogram OptiMaGicsINRA SELGEN metaprogram Projects EpiSel
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEpistatic genomic relationship matrices for interactions of any-order can be constructed using the Hadamard products of orthogonal additive and dominance genomic relationship matrices and standardization based on the trace of the resulting matrices. Variance components for litter size in pigs were estimated by Bayesian methods for five nested models with additive, dominance, and pairwise epistatic effects in a pig dataset, and including genomic inbreeding as a covariate.

resultsEstimates of additive and non-additive (dominance and epistatic) variance components were obtained for litter size. The variance component estimates were empirically orthogonal, i.e. they did not change when fitting increasingly complex models. Most of the genetic variance was captured by non-epistatic effects, as expected. In the full model, estimates of dominance and total epistatic variances (additive-by-additive plus additive-by-dominance plus dominance-by-dominance), expressed as a proportion of the total phenotypic variance, were equal to 0.02 and 0.04, respectively. The estimate of broad-sense heritability for litter size (0.15) was almost twice that of the narrow-sense heritability (0.09). Ignoring inbreeding depression yielded upward biased estimates of dominance variance, while estimates of epistatic variances were only slightly affected.

conclusionsEpistatic variance components can be easily computed using genomic relationship matrices. Correct orthogonal definition of the relationship matrices resulted in orthogonal partition of genetic variance into additive, dominance, and epistatic components, but obtaining accurate variance component estimates remains an issue. Genomic models that include non-additive effects must also consider inbreeding depression in order to avoid upward bias of estimates of dominance variance. Inclusion of epistasis did not improve the accuracy of prediction of breeding values.

Indexed as

AnimalsBayes TheoremBreedingEpistasis, GeneticFemaleGenes, DominantGenetic VariationGenomeGenomicsInbreedingLitter SizeModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalPedigreePhenotypePolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID30577727
PMCPMC6303964

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.