Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31817753›Full record

ArticleGenes2019

Weighted Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction for Carcass Traits in Hanwoo Cattle.

Bryan Irvine Lopez, Seung-Hwan Lee, Jong-Eun Park, Dong-Hyun Shin, Jae-Don Oh, Sara de Las Heras-Saldana, Julius van der Werf, Han-Ha Chai, Woncheoul Park, Dajeong Lim

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Evaluation of genomic breeding values and accuracy for carcass traits in Korean Hanwoo cows using whole-genome SNP chip panels.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Bryan Irvine LopezDivision of Animal Genomics and Bioinformatics, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.
Seung-Hwan LeeDepartment of Animal Science and Biotechnology, Chungnam National University, Daejeon 34134, Korea.
Jong-Eun ParkDivision of Animal Genomics and Bioinformatics, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.
Dong-Hyun ShinDepartment of Animal Biotechnology, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea.
Jae-Don OhDepartment of Animal Biotechnology, Chonbuk National University, Jeonju 54896, Korea.
Sara de Las Heras-SaldanaSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale 2351, Australia.
Julius van der WerfSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale 2351, Australia.
Han-Ha ChaiDivision of Animal Genomics and Bioinformatics, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.
Woncheoul ParkDivision of Animal Genomics and Bioinformatics, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.
Dajeong LimDivision of Animal Genomics and Bioinformatics, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju 55365, Korea.
Rural Development Administration · KRJeonbuk National University · KRUniversity of New England · AUChungnam National University · KR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) method has been widely used in routine genomic evaluation as it assumes a common variance for all single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP). However, this is unlikely in the case of traits influenced by major SNP. Hence, the present study aimed to improve the accuracy of GBLUP by using the weighted GBLUP (WGBLUP), which gives more weight to important markers for various carcass traits of Hanwoo cattle, such as backfat thickness (BFT), carcass weight (CWT), eye muscle area (EMA), and marbling score (MS). Linear and different nonlinearA SNP weighting procedures under WGBLUP were evaluated and compared with unweighted GBLUP and traditional pedigree-based methods (PBLUP). WGBLUP methods were assessed over ten iterations. Phenotypic data from 10,215 animals from different commercial herds that were slaughtered at approximately 30-month-old of age were used. All these animals were genotyped using Illumina Bovine 50k SNP chip and were divided into a training and a validation population by birth date on 1 November 2015. Genomic prediction accuracies obtained in the nonlinearA weighting methods were higher than those of the linear weighting for all traits. Moreover, unlike with linear methods, no sudden drops in the accuracy were noted after the peak was reached in nonlinearA methods. The average accuracies using PBLUP were 0.37, 0.49, 0.40, and 0.37, and 0.62, 0.74, 0.67, and 0.65 using GBLUP for BFT, CWT, EMA, and MS, respectively. Moreover, these accuracies of genomic prediction were further increased to 4.84% and 2.70% for BFT and CWT, respectively by using the nonlinearA method under the WGBLUP model. For EMA and MS, WGBLUP was as accurate as GBLUP. Our results indicate that the WGBLUP using a nonlinearA weighting method provides improved predictions for CWT and BFT, suggesting that the ability of WGBLUP over the other models by weighting selected SNPs appears to be trait-dependent.

Indexed as

GenomeGenotypeModels, GeneticPolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait, HeritableAnimalsCattleFemaleMalePedigreecarcass traitsgenomic predictionHanwoo cattleweighted GBLUP

Identifiers

PMID31817753
PMCPMC6947347
OpenAlexW2994357005

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.