ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2021
Marker genotyping error effects on genomic predictions under different genetic architectures.
Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genotyping errors can affect indirect predictions of young selection candidates: A simulation study.JDS communications · 2026Article
- Article
- Genomic predictions under different genetic architectures are impacted by mating designs.Veterinary and animal science · 2024Article
- Effect of genotyping errors on linkage map construction based on repeated chip analysis of two recombinant inbred line populations in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.).BMC plant biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to determine the effect of different rates of marker genotyping error on the accuracy of genomic prediction that was examined under distinct marker and quantitative trait loci (QTL) densities and different heritability estimates using a stochastic simulation approach. For each scenario of simulation, a reference population with phenotypic and genotypic records and a validation population with only genotypic records were considered. Marker effects were estimated in the reference population, and then their genotypic records were used to predict genomic breeding values in the validation population. The prediction accuracy was calculated as the correlation between estimated and true breeding values. The prediction bias was examined by computing the regression of true genomic breeding value on estimated genomic breeding value. The accuracy of the genomic evaluation was the highest in a scenario with no marker genotyping error and varied from 0.731 to 0.934. The accuracy of the genomic evaluation was the lowest in a scenario with marker genotyping error equal to 20% and changed from 0.517 to 0.762. The unbiased regression coefficients of true genomic breeding value on estimated genomic breeding value were obtained in the reference and validation populations when the rate of marker genotyping error was equal to zero. The results showed that marker genotyping error can reduce the accuracy of genomic evaluations. Moreover, marker genotyping error can provide biased estimates of genomic breeding values. Therefore, for obtaining accurate results it is recommended to minimize the marker genotyping errors to zero in genomic evaluation programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32995954What 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.