Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32993481›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2020

Use of gene expression and whole-genome sequence information to improve the accuracy of genomic prediction for carcass traits in Hanwoo cattle.

Sara de Las Heras-Saldana, Bryan Irvine Lopez, Nasir Moghaddar, Woncheoul Park, Jong-Eun Park, Ki Y Chung, Dajeong Lim, Seung H Lee, Donghyun Shin, Julius H J van der Werf

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed
12.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Genetic Associations ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genes · 2024
    Article
  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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sara de Las Heras-SaldanaSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
Bryan Irvine LopezAnimal Genomics and Bioinformatics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju, 55365, Republic of Korea.
Nasir MoghaddarSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia.
Woncheoul ParkAnimal Genomics and Bioinformatics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju, 55365, Republic of Korea.
Jong-Eun ParkAnimal Genomics and Bioinformatics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju, 55365, Republic of Korea.
Ki Y ChungDepartment of Beef Science, Korea National College of Agriculture and Fisheries, Jeonju, Republic of Korea.
Dajeong LimAnimal Genomics and Bioinformatics Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Rural Development Administration, Wanju, 55365, Republic of Korea. lim.dj@korea.kr.
Seung H LeeDivision of Animal and Dairy Science, Chungnam National University, Deajeon, 34148, Republic of Korea.
Donghyun ShinThe Animal Molecular Genetics and Breeding Centre, Jeonbuk National University, Jeonju, 54896, Republic of Korea.
Julius H J van der WerfSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, Australia. jvanderw@une.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2512-1696
Rural Development Administration · KRUniversity of New England · AUChungnam National University · KRJeonbuk National University · KR

Funding

Biogreen PJ0131901BioGreen PJ0113903BioGreen PJ01316906Rural Development Administration PJ012611Rural Development Administration RA Fellowship Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn this study, we assessed the accuracy of genomic prediction for carcass weight (CWT), marbling score (MS), eye muscle area (EMA) and back fat thickness (BFT) in Hanwoo cattle when using genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), weighted GBLUP (wGBLUP), and a BayesR model. For these models, we investigated the potential gain from using pre-selected single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) on imputed sequence data and from gene expression information. We used data on 13,717 animals with carcass phenotypes and imputed sequence genotypes that were split in an independent GWAS discovery set of varying size and a remaining set for validation of prediction. Expression data were used from a Hanwoo gene expression experiment based on 45 animals.

resultsUsing a larger number of animals in the reference set increased the accuracy of genomic prediction whereas a larger independent GWAS discovery dataset improved identification of predictive SNPs. Using pre-selected SNPs from GWAS in GBLUP improved accuracy of prediction by 0.02 for EMA and up to 0.05 for BFT, CWT, and MS, compared to a 50 k standard SNP array that gave accuracies of 0.50, 0.47, 0.58, and 0.47, respectively. Accuracy of prediction of BFT and CWT increased when BayesR was applied with the 50 k SNP array (0.02 and 0.03, respectively) and was further improved by combining the 50 k array with the top-SNPs (0.06 and 0.04, respectively). By contrast, using BayesR resulted in limited improvement for EMA and MS. wGBLUP did not improve accuracy but increased prediction bias. Based on the RNA-seq experiment, we identified informative expression quantitative trait loci, which, when used in GBLUP, improved the accuracy of prediction slightly, i.e. between 0.01 and 0.02. SNPs that were located in genes, the expression of which was associated with differences in trait phenotype, did not contribute to a higher prediction accuracy.

conclusionsOur results show that, in Hanwoo beef cattle, when SNPs are pre-selected from GWAS on imputed sequence data, the accuracy of prediction improves only slightly whereas the contribution of SNPs that are selected based on gene expression is not significant. The benefit of statistical models to prioritize selected SNPs for estimating genomic breeding values is trait-specific and depends on the genetic architecture of each trait.

Indexed as

AnimalsBreedingCattleGene Expression ProfilingGenome-Wide Association StudyMeatPolymorphism, Single NucleotideWhole Genome Sequencing

Identifiers

PMID32993481
PMCPMC7525992
OpenAlexW3090673466

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.