Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32497209›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2020

Genomic prediction using pooled data in a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction framework.

Johnna L Baller, Stephen D Kachman, Larry A Kuehn, Matthew L Spangler

Abstract read
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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 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. Review
  3. Pooled DNA sequencing in hairy vetch (Frontiers in plant science · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. 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
  6. 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

4 authors.

Johnna L BallerDepartment of Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Stephen D KachmanDepartment of Statistics, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.
Larry A KuehnUSDA, ARS, U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE.
Matthew L SpanglerDepartment of Animal Science, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Economically relevant traits are routinely collected within the commercial segments of the beef industry but are rarely included in genetic evaluations because of unknown pedigrees. Individual relationships could be resurrected with genomics, but this would be costly; therefore, pooling DNA and phenotypic data provide a cost-effective solution. Pedigree, phenotypic, and genomic data were simulated for a beef cattle population consisting of 15 generations. Genotypes mimicked a 50k marker panel (841 quantitative trait loci were located across the genome, approximately once per 3 Mb) and the phenotype was moderately heritable. Individuals from generation 15 were included in pools (observed genotype and phenotype were mean values of a group). Estimated breeding values (EBV) were generated from a single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction model. The effects of pooling strategy (random and minimizing or uniformly maximizing phenotypic variation within pools), pool size (1, 2, 10, 20, 50, 100, or no data from generation 15), and generational gaps of genotyping on EBV accuracy (correlation of EBV with true breeding values) were quantified. Greatest EBV accuracies of sires and dams were observed when there was no gap between genotyped parents and pooled offspring. The EBV accuracies resulting from pools were usually greater than no data from generation 15 regardless of sire or dam genotyping. Minimizing phenotypic variation increased EBV accuracy by 8% and 9% over random pooling and uniformly maximizing phenotypic variation, respectively. A pool size of 2 was the only scenario that did not significantly decrease EBV accuracy compared with individual data when pools were formed randomly or by uniformly maximizing phenotypic variation (P > 0.05). Pool sizes of 2, 10, 20, or 50 did not generally lead to statistical differences in EBV accuracy than individual data when pools were constructed to minimize phenotypic variation (P > 0.05). Largest numerical increases in EBV accuracy resulting from pooling compared with no data from generation 15 were seen with sires with prior low EBV accuracy (those born in generation 14). Pooling of any size led to larger EBV accuracies of the pools than individual data when minimizing phenotypic variation. Resulting EBV for the pools could be used to inform management decisions of those pools. Pooled genotyping to garner commercial-level phenotypes for genetic evaluations seems plausible although differences exist depending on pool size and pool formation strategy.

Indexed as

Models, GeneticAnimalsBreedingCattleFemaleGenomicsGenotypeLinear ModelsMalePedigreePhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait Locibeef cattleDNA poolinggenomic prediction

Identifiers

PMID32497209
PMCPMC7314383

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.