Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30719286›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2019

Improving genomic predictions by correction of genotypes from genotyping by sequencing in livestock populations.

Xiao Wang, Mogens Sandø Lund, Peipei Ma, Luc Janss, Haja N Kadarmideen, Guosheng Su

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2019. 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
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  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

6 authors.

Xiao Wang1Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Mogens Sandø Lund1Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Peipei Ma1Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Luc Janss1Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Haja N Kadarmideen2Department of Bio and Health Informatics and Department of Applied Mathematics and Computer Science, Technical University of Denmark, Kongens Lyngby, Denmark.
Guosheng Su1Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenotyping by sequencing (GBS) is a robust method to genotype markers. Many factors can influence the genotyping quality. One is that heterozygous genotypes could be wrongly genotyped as homozygotes, dependent on the genotyping depths. In this study, a method correcting this type of genotyping error was demonstrated. The efficiency of this correction method and its effect on genomic prediction were assessed using simulated data of livestock populations.

resultsChip array (Chip) and four depths of GBS data was simulated. After quality control (call rate ≥ 0.8 and MAF ≥ 0.01), the remaining number of Chip and GBS SNPs were both approximately 7,000, averaged over 10 replicates. GBS genotypes were corrected with the proposed method. The reliability of genomic prediction was calculated using GBS, corrected GBS (GBSc), true genotypes for the GBS loci (GBSr) and Chip data. The results showed that GBSc had higher rates of correct genotype calls and higher correlations with true genotypes than GBS. For genomic prediction, using Chip data resulted in the highest reliability. As the depth increased to 10, the prediction reliabilities using GBS and GBSc data approached those using true GBS data. The reliabilities of genomic prediction using GBSc data were 0.604, 0.672, 0.684 and 0.704 after genomic correction, with the improved values of 0.013, 0.009, 0.006 and 0.001 at depth = 2, 4, 5 and 10, respectively.

conclusionsThe current study showed that a correction method for GBS data increased the genotype accuracies and, consequently, improved genomic predictions. These results suggest that a correction of GBS genotype is necessary, especially for the GBS data with low depths.

Indexed as

Genomic predictionGenotype correctionGenotyping by sequencingSimulation

Identifiers

PMID30719286
PMCPMC6350319

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.