ArticleJournal of animal science and technology2020
Comparison of prediction accuracy for genomic estimated breeding value using the reference pig population of single-breed and admixed-breed.
Article in Journal of animal science and technology, 2020. 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Imputation of non-genotyped F1 dams to improve genetic gain in swine crossbreeding programs.Journal of animal science · 2022Article
- Erratum to: Comparison of prediction accuracy for genomic estimated breeding value using the reference pig population of single-breed and admixed-breed.Journal of animal science and technology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study was performed to increase the accuracy of genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) predictions for domestic pigs using single-breed and admixed reference populations (single-breed of Berkshire pigs [BS] with cross breed of Korean native pigs and Landrace pigs [CB]). The principal component analysis (PCA), linkage disequilibrium (LD), and genome-wide association study (GWAS) were performed to analyze the population structure prior to genomic prediction. Reference and test population data sets were randomly sampled 10 times each and precision accuracy was analyzed according to the size of the reference population (100, 200, 300, or 400 animals). For the BS population, prediction accuracy was higher for all economically important traits with larger reference population size. Prediction accuracy was ranged from -0.05 to 0.003, for all traits except carcass weight (CWT), when CB was used as the reference population and BS as the test. The accuracy of CB for backfat thickness (BF) and shear force (SF) using admixed population as reference increased with reference population size, while the results for CWT and muscle pH at 24 hours after slaughter (pH) were equivocal with respect to the relationship between accuracy and reference population size, although overall accuracy was similar to that using the BS as the reference.
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.