ArticleJournal of animal science2020
In silico validation of pooled genotyping strategies for genomic evaluation in Angus cattle.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Combining genomics and semen microbiome increases the accuracy of predicting bull prolificacy.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025Article
- Using pooled data for genomic prediction in a bivariate framework with missing data.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2022Article
- Estimating heritability using family-pooled phenotypic and genotypic data: a simulation study applied to aquaculture.Heredity · 2022Article
- Genotyping crossing parents and family bulks can facilitate cost-efficient genomic prediction strategies in small-scale line breeding programs.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this study, we aimed to assess the value of genotyping DNA pools as a strategy to generate accurate and cost-effective genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) of sires in multi-sire mating systems. In order to do that, we used phenotypic records of 2,436 Australian Angus cattle from 174 sires, including yearling weight (YWT; N = 1,589 records), coat score (COAT; N = 2,026 records), and Meat Standards Australia marbling score (MARB; N = 1,304 records). Phenotypes were adjusted for fixed effects and age at measurement and pools of 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 animals were explored. Pools were created either by phenotype or at random. When pools were created at random, 10 replicates were examined to provide a measure of sampling variation. The relative accuracy of each pooling strategy was measured by the Pearson correlation coefficient between the sire's GEBV with pooled progeny and the GEBV using individually genotyped progeny. Random pools allow the computation of sire GEBV that are, on average, moderately correlated (i.e., r > 0.5 at pool sizes [PS] ≤ 10) with those obtained without pooling. However, for pools assigned at random, the difference between the best and the worst relative accuracy obtained out of the 10 replicates was as high as 0.41 for YWT, 0.36 for COAT, and 0.61 for MARB. This uncertainty associated with the relative accuracy of GEBV makes randomly assigning animals to pools an unreliable approach. In contrast, pooling by phenotype allowed the estimation of sires' GEBV with a relative accuracy ≥ 0.9 at PS < 10 for all three phenotypes. Moreover, even with larger PS, the lowest relative accuracy obtained was 0.88 (YWT, PS = 20). In agreement with results using simulated data, we conclude that pooling by phenotype is a robust approach to implementing genomic evaluation using commercial herd data, and PS larger than 10 individuals can be considered.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.