ArticleFrontiers in genetics2020
Phenotypically Selective Genotyping Realizes More Genetic Gains in a Rainbow Trout Breeding Program in the Presence of Genotype-by-Environment Interactions.
Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Preselection on the Level of Bias and Accuracy in a Broiler Breeder Population, a Simulation Study.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025Article
- Genomic selection strategies to overcome genotype by environment interactions in biosecurity-based aquaculture breeding programs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Leveraging data from commercial cattle for genetic improvement- an international perspective.Journal of animal science · 2025Review
- ADAM-multi: software to simulate complex breeding programs for animals and plants with different ploidy levels and generalized genotypic effect models to account for multiple alleles.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Genotyping both live and dead animals to improve post-weaning survival of pigs in breeding programs.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024Article
- Genomic prediction in pigs using data from a commercial crossbred population: insights from the Duroc x (Landrace x Yorkshire) three-way crossbreeding system.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Selective genotyping strategies for a sib test scheme of a broiler breeder program.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Bias in variance component estimation in swine crossbreeding schemes using selective genotyping and phenotyping strategies.Journal of animal science · 2021Article
- Review: optimizing genomic selection for crossbred performance by model improvement and data collection.Journal of animal science · 2021Review
- Simulation studies to optimize genomic selection in honey bees.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2021Article
- Selective genotyping and phenotypic data inclusion strategies of crossbred progeny for combined crossbred and purebred selection in swine breeding.Journal of animal science · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Selective genotyping of phenotypically superior animals may lead to bias and less accurate genomic breeding values (GEBV). Performing selective genotyping based on phenotypes measured in the breeding environment (B) is not necessarily a good strategy when the aim of a breeding program is to improve animals' performance in the commercial environment (C). Our simulation study compared different genotyping strategies for selection candidates and for fish in C in a breeding program for rainbow trout in the presence of genotype-by-environment interactions when the program had limited genotyping resources and unregistered pedigrees of individuals. For the reference population, selective genotyping of top and bottom individuals in C based on phenotypes measured in C led to the highest genetic gains, followed by random genotyping and then selective genotyping of top individuals in C. For selection candidates, selective genotyping of top individuals in B based on phenotypes measured in B led to the highest genetic gains, followed by selective genotyping of top and bottom individuals and then random genotyping. Selective genotyping led to bias in predicting GEBV. However, in scenarios that used selective genotyping of top fish in B and random genotyping of fish in C, predictions of GEBV were unbiased, with genetic correlations of 0.2 and 0.5 between traits measured in B and C. Estimates of variance components were sensitive to genotyping strategy, with an overestimation of the variance with selective genotyping of top and bottom fish and an underestimation of the variance with selective genotyping of top fish. Unbiased estimates of variance components were obtained when fish in B and C were genotyped at random. In conclusion, we recommend phenotypic genotyping of top and bottom fish in C and top fish in B for the purpose of selecting breeding animals and random genotyping of individuals in B and C for the purpose of estimating variance components when a genomic breeding program for rainbow trout aims to improve animals' performance in C.
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.