Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31805849›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2019

Genomic prediction based on selected variants from imputed whole-genome sequence data in Australian sheep populations.

Nasir Moghaddar, Majid Khansefid, Julius H J van der Werf, Sunduimijid Bolormaa, Naomi Duijvesteijn, Samuel A Clark, Andrew A Swan, Hans D Daetwyler, Iona M MacLeod

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Caprine and Ovine Genomic Selection-Progress and Application.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  14. Article
  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

9 authors.

Nasir MoghaddarSheep-CRC, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Majid KhansefidSheep-CRC, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Julius H J van der WerfSheep-CRC, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia. jvanderw@une.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2512-1696
Sunduimijid BolormaaSheep-CRC, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Naomi DuijvesteijnSheep-CRC, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Samuel A ClarkSheep-CRC, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Andrew A SwanSheep-CRC, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Hans D DaetwylerSheep-CRC, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.
Iona M MacLeodSheep-CRC, Armidale, NSW, 2351, Australia.

Funding

Australian Sheep Cooperative Research Centre (AU) Program 3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhole-genome sequence (WGS) data could contain information on genetic variants at or in high linkage disequilibrium with causative mutations that underlie the genetic variation of polygenic traits. Thus far, genomic prediction accuracy has shown limited increase when using such information in dairy cattle studies, in which one or few breeds with limited diversity predominate. The objective of our study was to evaluate the accuracy of genomic prediction in a multi-breed Australian sheep population of relatively less related target individuals, when using information on imputed WGS genotypes.

methodsBetween 9626 and 26,657 animals with phenotypes were available for nine economically important sheep production traits and all had WGS imputed genotypes. About 30% of the data were used to discover predictive single nucleotide polymorphism (SNPs) based on a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and the remaining data were used for training and validation of genomic prediction. Prediction accuracy using selected variants from imputed sequence data was compared to that using a standard array of 50k SNP genotypes, thereby comparing genomic best linear prediction (GBLUP) and Bayesian methods (BayesR/BayesRC). Accuracy of genomic prediction was evaluated in two independent populations that were each lowly related to the training set, one being purebred Merino and the other crossbred Border Leicester x Merino sheep.

resultsA substantial improvement in prediction accuracy was observed when selected sequence variants were fitted alongside 50k genotypes as a separate variance component in GBLUP (2GBLUP) or in Bayesian analysis as a separate category of SNPs (BayesRC). From an average accuracy of 0.27 in both validation sets for the 50k array, the average absolute increase in accuracy across traits with 2GBLUP was 0.083 and 0.073 for purebred and crossbred animals, respectively, whereas with BayesRC it was 0.102 and 0.087. The average gain in accuracy was smaller when selected sequence variants were treated in the same category as 50k SNPs. Very little improvement over 50k prediction was observed when using all WGS variants.

conclusionsAccuracy of genomic prediction in diverse sheep populations increased substantially by using variants selected from whole-genome sequence data based on an independent multi-breed GWAS, when compared to genomic prediction using standard 50K genotypes.

Indexed as

Whole Genome SequencingAnimalsAustraliaBayes TheoremBreedingGenome-Wide Association StudyGenomicsGenotypePhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideSheep

Identifiers

PMID31805849
PMCPMC6896509

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.