Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30693018›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2018

Using Different Single-Step Strategies to Improve the Efficiency of Genomic Prediction on Body Measurement Traits in Pig.

Hailiang Song, Jinxin Zhang, Qin Zhang, Xiangdong Ding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Genomic Prediction Ability for Novel Profitability Traits Using Different Models in Nelore Cattle.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  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. Single-step genomic evaluation of Russian dairy cattle using internal and external information.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2022
    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.

Hailiang SongKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, National Engineering Laboratory of Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Jinxin ZhangKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, National Engineering Laboratory of Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Qin ZhangKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, National Engineering Laboratory of Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Xiangdong DingKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, National Engineering Laboratory of Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.

Funding

Investigation of metabolites related to manganese exposureF31ES027304 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI BAKER, MARISSA GAYL · 2016 to 2017
$61k
NIEHS NIH HHS 27304C2054
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In genomic prediction, single-step method has been demonstrated to outperform multi-step methods. This study investigated the efficiency of genomic prediction for seven body measurement traits in Yorkshire population and simulated data using single-step method. For Yorkshire population, in total, 592 individuals were genotyped with Illumina PorcineSNP80 marker panel. We compared the prediction accuracy obtained from a traditional pedigree-based method (BLUP), a genomic BLUP (GBLUP) and a single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) through 20 replicates of 5-fold cross-validation (CV). In addition, we also compared the performance of two-trait ssGBLUP and single-trait ssGBLUP for the traits with different gradients of genetic correlation. Our results indicated the GBLUP method generally provided lower accuracies of prediction than BLUP and ssGBLUP methods, and the average standard deviation of unbiasedness was as large as 0.278. For single-step methods, the accuracies of ssGBLUP for seven body measurement traits ranged from 0.543 to 0.785, and the unbiasedness of ssGBLUP ranged from 0.834 to 1.026, respectively. ssGBLUP generally generated 1% on average higher prediction accuracy than traditional BLUP, the improvement of ssGBLUP and the performance of GBLUP was lower than expected mainly due to the small number of genotyped animals, it was further demonstrated by our simulation study. We simulated two traits with heritabilities 0.1, 0.3, and with high genetic correlation 0.7, our results also showed that the prediction accuracies were low for GBLUP compared with other three methods with different genotyped reference population sizes and the accuracies were improved with increasing the genotyped reference population size. However, the increase was small for ssGBLUP compared with BLUP when the genotyped reference population size was <500. Our results also demonstrated that the accuracies of genomic prediction can be further improved by implementing two-trait ssGBLUP model, the maximum gain on accuracy was 2 and 2.6% for trait of chest width compared to single-trait ssGBLUP and traditional BLUP, while the gain was decreased with the weakness of genetic correlation. Two-trait ssGBLUP even performed worse than single trait analysis in the scenario of low genetic correlation.

Indexed as

body measurement traitscross-validationpigsingle-step GBLUPtwo-trait model

Identifiers

PMID30693018
PMCPMC6340005

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.