Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32980863›Full record

ArticleHeredity2021

Efficient weighting methods for genomic best linear-unbiased prediction (BLUP) adapted to the genetic architectures of quantitative traits.

Duanyang Ren, Lixia An, Baojun Li, Liying Qiao, Wenzhong Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heredity, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Impact of scale parameter for marker variance prior in some Bayesian whole-genome regression methods.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Transforming beef quality through healthy breeding: a strategy to reduce carcinogenic compounds and enhance human health: a review.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Duanyang RenCollege of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7786-6748
Lixia AnCollege of Information, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, China.
Baojun LiCollege of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, China.
Liying QiaoCollege of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, China.
Wenzhong LiuCollege of Animal Science and Veterinary Medicine, Shanxi Agricultural University, Taigu, China. tglwzyc@163.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic best linear-unbiased prediction (GBLUP) assumes equal variance for all marker effects, which is suitable for traits that conform to the infinitesimal model. For traits controlled by major genes, Bayesian methods with shrinkage priors or genome-wide association study (GWAS) methods can be used to identify causal variants effectively. The information from Bayesian/GWAS methods can be used to construct the weighted genomic relationship matrix (G). However, it remains unclear which methods perform best for traits varying in genetic architecture. Therefore, we developed several methods to optimize the performance of weighted GBLUP and compare them with other available methods using simulated and real data sets. First, two types of methods (marker effects with local shrinkage or normal prior) were used to obtain test statistics and estimates for each marker effect. Second, three weighted G matrices were constructed based on the marker information from the first step: (1) the genomic-feature-weighted G, (2) the estimated marker-variance-weighted G, and (3) the absolute value of the estimated marker-effect-weighted G. Following the above process, six different weighted GBLUP methods (local shrinkage/normal-prior GF/EV/AEWGBLUP) were proposed for genomic prediction. Analyses with both simulated and real data demonstrated that these options offer flexibility for optimizing the weighted GBLUP for traits with a broad spectrum of genetic architectures. The advantage of weighting methods over GBLUP in terms of accuracy was trait dependant, ranging from 14.8% to marginal for simulated traits and from 44% to marginal for real traits. Local-shrinkage prior EVWGBLUP is superior for traits mainly controlled by loci of a large effect. Normal-prior AEWGBLUP performs well for traits mainly controlled by loci of moderate effect. For traits controlled by some loci with large effects (explain 25-50% genetic variance) and a range of loci with small effects, GFWGBLUP has advantages. In conclusion, the optimal weighted GBLUP method for genomic selection should take both the genetic architecture and number of QTLs of traits into consideration carefully.

Indexed as

Genome-Wide Association StudyModels, GeneticBayes TheoremGenomicsGenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID32980863
PMCPMC8027853

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.