Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30923535›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2019

Factors Affecting the Accuracy of Genomic Selection for Agricultural Economic Traits in Maize, Cattle, and Pig Populations.

Haohao Zhang, Lilin Yin, Meiyue Wang, Xiaohui Yuan, Xiaolei Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 87 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
87citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Harnessing big data for enhanced genome-wide prediction in winter wheat breeding.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Integrating multi-omics and machine learning for disease resistance prediction in legumes.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Review

27 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors.

Haohao ZhangSchool of Computer Science and Technology, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China.
Lilin YinKey Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding, and Reproduction of Ministry of Education and Key Laboratory of Swine Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.
Meiyue WangDepartment of Botany and Plant Sciences, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, United States.
Xiaohui YuanSchool of Computer Science and Technology, Wuhan University of Technology, Wuhan, China.
Xiaolei LiuKey Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding, and Reproduction of Ministry of Education and Key Laboratory of Swine Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, College of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic Selection (GS) has been proved to be a powerful tool for estimating genetic values in plant and livestock breeding. Newly developed sequencing technologies have dramatically reduced the cost of genotyping and significantly increased the scale of genotype data that used for GS. Meanwhile, state-of-the-art statistical methods were developed to make the best use of high marker density genotype data. In this study, 14 traits from four data sets of three species (maize, cattle, and pig) and five influential factors that affect the prediction accuracy were evaluated, including marker density (from 1 to ~600 k), statistical method (GBLUP-A, GBLUP-AD, and BayesR), minor allele frequency (MAF), heritability, and genetic architecture. Results indicate that in the GBLUP method, higher marker density leads to a higher prediction accuracy. In contrast, BayesR method needs more Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) iterations to reach the convergence and get reliable prediction values. BayesR outperforms GBLUP in predicting high or medium heritability trait that affected by one or several genes with large effects, while GBLUP performs similarly or slightly better than BayesR in predicting low heritability trait that controlled by a large amount of genes with minor effects. Prediction accuracy of trait with complex genetic architecture can be improved by increasing the marker density. Interestingly, for simple traits that controlled by one or several genes with large effects, higher marker density can cause a lower prediction accuracy if the QTN is included, but leads to a higher prediction accuracy if the QTN is excluded. The quantity of genetic markers with low MAF would not significantly affect the prediction accuracy of GBLUP, but results in a bad prediction accuracy performance of BayesR method. Compared with GBLUP-A, GBLUP-AD didn't show any advantages in capturing the non-additive variance for the traits with high heritability. The factors that affected prediction accuracy are discussed in this study and indicate that a combination of either GBLUP or BayesR method with moderate marker density and favorable polymorphism single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (~25 k SNPs) would always produce a good and stable prediction accuracy with acceptable breeding and computational costs.

Indexed as

BayesRdominanceGBLUPgenomic predictionmarker density

Identifiers

PMID30923535
PMCPMC6426750

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.