Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31278176›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2019

Use of Repeated Group Measurements with Drop Out Animals for Variance Component Estimation and Genetic Evaluation: A Simulation Study.

Hongding Gao, Bjarne Nielsen, Guosheng Su, Per Madsen, Just Jensen, Ole F Christensen, Tage Ostersen, Mahmoud Shirali

Abstract 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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Hongding GaoCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele 8830, Denmark and hongding.gao@mbg.au.dk.ORCID 0000-0002-6018-0766
Bjarne NielsenSEGES, Pig Research Centre, Copenhagen 1609, Denmark.
Guosheng SuCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele 8830, Denmark and.
Per MadsenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele 8830, Denmark and.
Just JensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele 8830, Denmark and.ORCID 0000-0003-3291-8468
Ole F ChristensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele 8830, Denmark and.
Tage OstersenSEGES, Pig Research Centre, Copenhagen 1609, Denmark.
Mahmoud ShiraliCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Tjele 8830, Denmark and.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The efficiency of feed utilization plays an important role in animal breeding. However, measuring feed intake (FI) is costly on an individual basis under practical conditions. Using group measurements to model FI could be practically feasible and cost-effective. The objectives of this study were to develop a random regression model based on repeated group measurements with consideration of missing phenotypes caused by drop out animals. Focus is on variance components (VC) estimation and genetic evaluation, and to investigate the effect of group composition on VC estimation and genetic evaluation using simulated datasets. Data were simulated based on individual FI in a pig population. Each individual had measurement on FI at 6 different time points, reflecting 6 different weeks during the test period. The simulated phenotypes consisted of additive genetic, permanent environment, and random residual effects. Additive genetic and permanent environmental effects were both simulated and modeled by first order Legendre polynomials. Three grouping scenarios based on genetic relationships among the group members were investigated: (1) medium within and across pen genetic relationship; (2) high within group relationship; (3) low within group relationship. To investigate the effect of the drop out animals during test period, a proportion (15%) of animals with individual phenotypes was set as the drop out animals, and two drop out scenarios within each grouping scenario were assessed: (1) animals were randomly dropped out; (2) animals with lower phenotypes were dropped out based on the ranking at each time point. The results show that using group measurements yielded similar VCs estimates but with larger SDs compared with the corresponding scenario of using individual measurements. Compared to scenarios without drop out, similar VC estimates were observed when animals were dropped out randomly, whereas reduced VC estimates were observed when animals were dropped out by the ranking of phenotypes. Different grouping scenarios produced similar VC estimates. Compared to scenarios without drop out, there were no loss of accuracies of genetic evaluation for drop out scenarios. However, dropping out animals by the ranking of phenotypes produced larger bias of estimated breeding values compared to the scenario without dropped out animals and scenario of dropping out animals by random. In conclusion, with an optimized group structure, the developed model can properly handle group measurements with drop out animals, and can achieve comparable accuracy of genetic evaluation for traits measured at the group level.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticAnalysis of VarianceAnimal FeedAnimalsEatingFemaleMaleModels, StatisticalPhenotypeRandom AllocationRegression AnalysisSwineaccuracyfeed intakegroup compositionlongitudinalrandom regression

Identifiers

PMID31278176
PMCPMC6723121

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.