Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32428206›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2020

In silico validation of pooled genotyping strategies for genomic evaluation in Angus cattle.

Pâmela A Alexandre, Antonio Reverter, Sigrid A Lehnert, Laercio R Porto-Neto, Sonja Dominik

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Combining genomics and semen microbiome increases the accuracy of predicting bull prolificacy.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  2. Using pooled data for genomic prediction in a bivariate framework with missing data.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

5 authors.

Pâmela A AlexandreCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Agriculture and Food, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Antonio ReverterCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Agriculture and Food, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Sigrid A LehnertCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Agriculture and Food, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Laercio R Porto-NetoCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Agriculture and Food, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Sonja DominikCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Agriculture and Food, Armidale, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BreedingGenomeGenotypeAnimalsAustraliaBody CompositionCattleComputer SimulationFemaleGenomicsGenotyping TechniquesMaleReproducibility of Resultsbeef cattleDNA poolinggenomic selectionhybrid genomic relationship matrix

Identifiers

PMID32428206
PMCPMC7276671

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.