Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31539424›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2019

Genomic predictions in purebreds with a multibreed genomic relationship matrix1.

Yvette Steyn, Daniela A L Lourenco, Ignacy Misztal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Genetic Evaluation of Beef Sires Using a Beef-on-Dairy Crossbred Reference Population.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Indirect Genomic Predictions for Indicine Cattle Breeds With SNP Effects From a Multi-Breed Genomic Evaluation.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Strategies for genomic predictions of an indicine multi-breed population using single-step GBLUP.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Current status of genomic evaluation.Journal of animal science · 2020
    Review
  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

3 authors.

Yvette SteynDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Daniela A L LourencoDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Ignacy MisztalDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Combining breeds in a multibreed evaluation can have a negative impact on prediction accuracy, especially if single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) effects differ among breeds. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of a multibreed genomic relationship matrix (G), where SNP effects are considered to be unique to each breed, that is, nonshared. This multibreed G was created by treating SNP of different breeds as if they were on nonoverlapping positions on the chromosome, although, in reality, they were not. This simple setup may avoid spurious Identity by state (IBS) relationships between breeds and automatically considers breed-specific allele frequencies. This scenario was contrasted to a regular multibreed evaluation where all SNPs were shared, that is, the same position, and to single-breed evaluations. Different SNP densities (9k and 45k) and different effective population sizes (Ne) were tested. Five breeds mimicking recent beef cattle populations that diverged from the same historical population were simulated using different selection criteria. It was assumed that quantitative trait locus (QTL) effects were the same over all breeds. For the recent population, generations 1-9 had approximately half of the animals genotyped, whereas all animals in generation 10 were genotyped. Generation 10 animals were set for validation; therefore, each breed had a validation group. Analyses were performed using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction. Prediction accuracy was calculated as the correlation between true (T) and genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). Accuracies of GEBV were lower for the larger Ne and low SNP density. All three evaluation scenarios using 45k resulted in similar accuracies, suggesting that the marker density is high enough to account for relationships and linkage disequilibrium with QTL. A shared multibreed evaluation using 9k resulted in a decrease of accuracy of 0.08 for a smaller Ne and 0.12 for a larger Ne. This loss was mostly avoided when markers were treated as nonshared within the same G matrix. A G matrix with nonshared SNP enables multibreed evaluations without considerably changing accuracy, especially with limited information per breed.

Indexed as

Gene FrequencyGenomicsAnimalsBreedingCattleFemaleGenetic MarkersGenotypeLinkage DisequilibriumMaleModels, GeneticPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociSpecies SpecificityGenetic Markersacross-breed evaluationgenomic selectionmarker effect modelsingle nucleotide polymorphism–best linear unbiased prediction

Identifiers

PMID31539424
PMCPMC6827462

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.