Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32762654›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2020

Performances of Adaptive MultiBLUP, Bayesian regressions, and weighted-GBLUP approaches for genomic predictions in Belgian Blue beef cattle.

José Luis Gualdrón Duarte, Ann-Stephan Gori, Xavier Hubin, Daniela Lourenco, Carole Charlier, Ignacy Misztal, Tom Druet

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

José Luis Gualdrón DuarteUnit of Animal Genomics, GIGA-R, 11 Avenue de l'Hôpital (B34), University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium. jlgualdron@uliege.be.
Ann-Stephan GoriInnovation Department, Elevéo asbl and Inovéo, Awé Group, 5590, Ciney, Belgium.
Xavier HubinInnovation Department, Elevéo asbl and Inovéo, Awé Group, 5590, Ciney, Belgium.
Daniela LourencoDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, 425 River Rd, Athens, GA, 30602, USA.
Carole CharlierUnit of Animal Genomics, GIGA-R, 11 Avenue de l'Hôpital (B34), University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium.
Ignacy MisztalDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, 425 River Rd, Athens, GA, 30602, USA.
Tom DruetUnit of Animal Genomics, GIGA-R, 11 Avenue de l'Hôpital (B34), University of Liège, 4000, Liège, Belgium.
University of Liège · BEUniversity of Georgia · US

Funding

Fonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRS T.1053.15
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic selection has been successfully implemented in many livestock and crop species. The genomic best linear unbiased predictor (GBLUP) approach, assigning equal variance to all SNP effects, is one of the reference methods. When large-effect variants contribute to complex traits, it has been shown that genomic prediction methods that assign a higher variance to subsets of SNP effects can achieve higher prediction accuracy. We herein compared the efficiency of several such approaches, including the Adaptive MultiBLUP (AM-BLUP) that uses local genomic relationship matrices (GRM) to automatically identify and weight genomic regions with large effects, to predict genetic merit in Belgian Blue beef cattle.

resultsWe used a population of approximately 10,000 genotyped cows and their phenotypes for 14 traits, mostly related to muscular development and body dimensions. According to the trait, we found that 4 to 25% of the genetic variance could be associated with 2 to 12 genomic regions harbouring large-effect variants. Noteworthy, three previously identified recessive deleterious variants presented heterozygote advantage and were among the most significant SNPs for several traits. The AM-BLUP resulted in increased reliability of genomic predictions compared to GBLUP (+ 2%), but Bayesian methods proved more efficient (+ 3%). Overall, the reliability gains remained thus limited although higher gains were observed for skin thickness, a trait affected by two genomic regions having particularly large effects. Higher accuracies than those from the original AM-BLUP were achieved when applying the Bayesian Sparse Linear Mixed Model to pre-select groups of SNPs with large effects and subsequently use their estimated variance to build a weighted GRM. Finally, the single-step GBLUP performed best and could be further improved (+ 3% prediction accuracy) by using these weighted GRM.

conclusionsThe AM-BLUP is an attractive method to automatically identify and weight genomic regions with large effects on complex traits. However, the method was less accurate than Bayesian methods. Overall, weighted methods achieved modest accuracy gains compared to GBLUP. Nevertheless, the computational efficiency of the AM-BLUP might be valuable at higher marker density, including with whole-genome sequencing data. Furthermore, weighted GRM are particularly useful to account for large variance loci in the single-step GBLUP.

Indexed as

GenomeGenomicsAnimalsBayes TheoremBelgiumCattleFemaleGenotypeModels, GeneticPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of ResultsBeef cattleBovine genomicsGenome-wide association studyGenomic predictionGenomic selection

Identifiers

PMID32762654
PMCPMC7430838
OpenAlexW3048022184

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.