Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31171566›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2019

Genome-Wide Association Study and Cost-Efficient Genomic Predictions for Growth and Fillet Yield in Nile Tilapia (

Grazyella M Yoshida, Jean P Lhorente, Katharina Correa, Jose Soto, Diego Salas, José M Yáñez

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 111 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Multi-Trait Genomic Prediction of Meat Yield in Pacific Whiteleg Shrimp (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Deep learning for genomic selection of aquatic animals.Marine life science & technology · 2024
    Review
  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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Grazyella M YoshidaFacultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, 8820808 Chile.ORCID 0000-0002-6788-7369
Jean P LhorenteBenchmark Genetics Chile, Puerto Montt, Chile, and.
Katharina CorreaBenchmark Genetics Chile, Puerto Montt, Chile, and.
Jose SotoGrupo Acuacorporacion Internacional (GACI), Cañas, Costa Rica.
Diego SalasGrupo Acuacorporacion Internacional (GACI), Cañas, Costa Rica.
José M YáñezFacultad de Ciencias Veterinarias y Pecuarias, Universidad de Chile, Santiago, 8820808 Chile, jmayanez@uchile.cl.ORCID 0000-0002-6612-4087
International Christian University · CRUniversity of Chile · CL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Fillet yield (FY) and harvest weight (HW) are economically important traits in Nile tilapia production. Genetic improvement of these traits, especially for FY, are lacking, due to the absence of efficient methods to measure the traits without sacrificing fish and the use of information from relatives to selection. However, genomic information could be used by genomic selection to improve traits that are difficult to measure directly in selection candidates, as in the case of FY. The objectives of this study were: (i) to perform genome-wide association studies (GWAS) to dissect the genetic architecture of FY and HW, (ii) to evaluate the accuracy of genotype imputation and (iii) to assess the accuracy of genomic selection using true and imputed low-density (LD) single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panels to determine a cost-effective strategy for practical implementation of genomic information in tilapia breeding programs. The data set consisted of 5,866 phenotyped animals and 1,238 genotyped animals (108 parents and 1,130 offspring) using a 50K SNP panel. The GWAS were performed using all genotyped and phenotyped animals. The genotyped imputation was performed from LD panels (LD0.5K, LD1K and LD3K) to high-density panel (HD), using information from parents and 20% of offspring in the reference set and the remaining 80% in the validation set. In addition, we tested the accuracy of genomic selection using true and imputed genotypes comparing the accuracy obtained from pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction (PBLUP) and genomic predictions. The results from GWAS supports evidence of the polygenic nature of FY and HW. The accuracy of imputation ranged from 0.90 to 0.98 for LD0.5K and LD3K, respectively. The accuracy of genomic prediction outperformed the estimated breeding value from PBLUP. The use of imputation for genomic selection resulted in an increased relative accuracy independent of the trait and LD panel analyzed. The present results suggest that genotype imputation could be a cost-effective strategy for genomic selection in Nile tilapia breeding programs.

Indexed as

GenomeGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsModels, BiologicalPhenotypeAnimalsCichlidsGenotypeInheritance PatternsPolymorphism, Single Nucleotidecomplex traitscost-efficientgenomic predictiongenotype imputationGenPredGWASlow-density panelOreochromis niloticusShared Data Resources

Identifiers

PMID31171566
PMCPMC6686944
OpenAlexW2955792412

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.