Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33381150›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2020

Improving Genomic Prediction of Crossbred and Purebred Dairy Cattle.

Majid Khansefid, Michael E Goddard, Mekonnen Haile-Mariam, Kon V Konstantinov, Chris Schrooten, Gerben de Jong, Erica G Jewell, Erin O'Connor, Jennie E Pryce, Hans D Daetwyler and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Genetic Evaluation of Beef Sires Using a Beef-on-Dairy Crossbred Reference Population.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

11 authors.

Majid KhansefidAgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Agriculture Victoria Services, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Michael E GoddardAgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Agriculture Victoria Services, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Mekonnen Haile-MariamAgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Agriculture Victoria Services, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Kon V KonstantinovDataGene, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Chris SchrootenCRV, Arnhem, Netherlands.
Gerben de JongCRV, Arnhem, Netherlands.
Erica G JewellDataGene, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Erin O'ConnorCRV Ambreed, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Jennie E PryceAgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Agriculture Victoria Services, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Hans D DaetwylerAgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Agriculture Victoria Services, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.
Iona M MacLeodAgriBio Centre for AgriBioscience, Agriculture Victoria Services, Bundoora, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study assessed the accuracy and bias of genomic prediction (GP) in purebred Holstein (H) and Jersey (J) as well as crossbred (H and J) validation cows using different reference sets and prediction strategies. The reference sets were made up of different combinations of 36,695 H and J purebreds and crossbreds. Additionally, the effect of using different sets of marker genotypes on GP was studied (conventional panel: 50k, custom panel enriched with, or close to, causal mutations: XT_50k, and conventional high-density with a limited custom set: pruned HDnGBS). We also compared the use of genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and Bayesian (emBayesR) models, and the traits tested were milk, fat, and protein yields. On average, by including crossbred cows in the reference population, the prediction accuracies increased by 0.01-0.08 and were less biased (regression coefficient closer to 1 by 0.02-0.16), and the benefit was greater for crossbreds compared to purebreds. The accuracy of prediction increased by 0.02 using XT_50k compared to 50k genotypes without affecting the bias. Although using pruned HDnGBS instead of 50k also increased the prediction accuracy by about 0.02, it increased the bias for purebred predictions in emBayesR models. Generally, emBayesR outperformed GBLUP for prediction accuracy when using 50k or pruned HDnGBS genotypes, but the benefits diminished with XT_50k genotypes. Crossbred predictions derived from a joint pure H and J reference were similar in accuracy to crossbred predictions derived from the two separate purebred reference sets and combined proportional to breed composition. However, the latter approach was less biased by 0.13. Most interestingly, using an equalized breed reference instead of an H-dominated reference, on average, reduced the bias of prediction by 0.16-0.19 and increased the accuracy by 0.04 for crossbred and J cows, with a little change in the H accuracy. In conclusion, we observed improved genomic predictions for both crossbreds and purebreds by equalizing breed contributions in a mixed breed reference that included crossbred cows. Furthermore, we demonstrate, that compared to the conventional 50k or high-density panels, our customized set of 50k sequence markers improved or matched the prediction accuracy and reduced bias with both GBLUP and Bayesian models.

Indexed as

Bayesiancrossbreddairy cattleGBLUPgenomic predictionmulti-breed

Identifiers

PMID33381150
PMCPMC7767986

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.