ArticleJournal of animal science2019
The impact of reducing the frequency of animals genotyped at higher density on imputation and prediction accuracies using ssGBLUP1.
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 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for accommodating gene-edited sires and their descendants in genetic evaluations.Journal of animal science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The largest gains in accuracy in a genomic selection program come from genotyping young selection candidates who have not yet produced progeny and who might, or might not, have a phenotypic record recorded. To reduce genotyping costs and to allow for an increased amount of genomic data to be available in a population, young selection candidates may be genotyped with low-density (LD) panels and imputed to a higher density. However, to ensure that a reasonable imputation accuracy persists overtime, some parent animals originally genotyped at LD must be re-genotyped at a higher density. This study investigated the long-term impact of selectively re-genotyping parents with a medium-density (MD) SNP panel on the accuracy of imputation and on the genetic predictions using ssGBLUP in a simulated beef cattle population. Assuming a moderately heritable trait (0.25) and a population undergoing selection, the simulation generated sequence data for a founder population (100 male and 500 female individuals) and 9,000 neutral markers, considered as the MD panel. All selection candidates from generation 8 to 15 were genotyped with LD panels corresponding to a density of 0.5% (LD_0.5), 2% (LD_2), and 5% (LD_5) of the MD. Re-genotyping scenarios chose parents at random or based on EBV and ranged from 10% of male parents to re-genotyping all male and female parents with MD. Ranges in average imputation accuracy at generation 15 were 0.567 to 0.936, 0.795 to 0.985, and 0.931 to 0.995 for the LD_0.5, LD_2, and LD_5, respectively, and the average EBV accuracies ranged from 0.453 to 0.735, 0.631 to 0.784, and 0.748 to 0.807 for LD_0.5, LD_2, and LD_5, respectively. Re-genotyping parents based on their EBV resulted in higher imputation and EBV accuracies compared to selecting parents at random and these values increased with the size of LD panels. Differences between re-genotyping scenarios decreased when the density of the LD panel increased, suggesting fewer animals needed to be re-genotyped to achieve higher accuracies. In general, imputation and EBV accuracies were greater when more parents were re-genotyped, independent of the proportion of males and females. In practice, the relationship between the density of the LD panel used and the target panel must be considered to determine the number (proportion) of animals that would need to be re-genotyped to enable sufficient imputation accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.