Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180915›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2020

Impact of inclusion rates of crossbred phenotypes and genotypes in nucleus selection programs.

Garrett M See, Benny E Mote, Matthew L Spangler

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Garrett M SeeDepartment of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.
Benny E MoteDepartment of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.
Matthew L SpanglerDepartment of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.
University of Nebraska–Lincoln · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous methods have been suggested to incorporate crossbred (CB) phenotypes and genotypes into swine selection programs, yet little research has focused on the implicit trade-off decisions between generating data at the nucleus or commercial level. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of altering the proportion of purebred (PB) and CB phenotypes and genotypes in genetic evaluations on the response to selection of CB performance. Assuming CB and PB performance with moderate heritabilities (h2=0.4), a three-breed swine crossbreeding scheme was simulated and selection was practiced for six generations, where the goal was to increase CB performance. Phenotypes, genotypes, and pedigrees for three PB breeds (25 and 175 mating males and females for each breed, respectively), F1 crosses (400 mating females), and terminal cross progeny (2,500) were simulated. The genome consisted of 18 chromosomes with 1,800 quantitative trait loci and 72k single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers. Selection was performed in PB breeds using estimated breeding value for each phenotyping/genotyping strategy. Strategies investigated were: 1) increasing the proportion of CB with genotypes, phenotypes, and sire pedigree relationships, 2) decreasing the proportion of PB phenotypes and genotypes, and 3) altering the genetic correlation between PB and CB performance (rpc). Each unique rpc scenario and data collection strategy was replicated 10 times. Results showed that including CB data improved the CB performance regardless of  rpc or data collection strategy compared with when no CB data were included. Compared with using only PB information, including 10% of CB progeny per generation with sire pedigrees and phenotypes increased the response in CB phenotype by 134%, 55%, 33%, 23%, and 21% when rpc was 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9, respectively. When the same 10% of CB progeny were also genotyped, CB performance increased by 243%, 54%, 38%, 23%, and 20% when the rpc was 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9, respectively, compared with when no CB data were utilized. Minimal change was observed in the average CB phenotype when PB phenotypes were included or proportionally removed when CB were genotyped. Removal of both PB phenotypes and genotypes when CB were genotyped greatly reduced the response in CB performance. In practice, the optimal inclusion rate of CB and PB data depends upon the genetic correlation between CB and PB animals and the expense of additional CB data collection compared with the economic benefit associated with increased CB performance.

Indexed as

Hybridization, GeneticPolymorphism, Single NucleotideAnimalsFemaleGenotypeMaleModels, GeneticPedigreePhenotypeSwinecommercial datagenotyping strategyphenotyping strategyswine

Identifiers

PMID33180915
PMCPMC7751172
OpenAlexW3100555890

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.