ReviewJournal of animal science2021
Review: optimizing genomic selection for crossbred performance by model improvement and data collection.
Review in Journal of animal science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrative Proteomic and Metabolomic Analyses Reveal Arginase-1-Mediated Nitrogen Metabolic Reprogramming Associated with Growth Advantage in Ronglai Binary Hybrid Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Genome-wide association study of molecular markers related to keel length in a specialized strain of yellow feathered broilers.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Optimization of breeding program design through stochastic simulation with evolutionary algorithms.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- Opportunities to improve environmental sustainability of pork production through genetics.Journal of animal science · 2025Review
- Optimization of breeding program design through stochastic simulation with kernel regression.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2023Article
- Predicting the impact of genotype-by-genotype interaction on the purebred-crossbred genetic correlation from phenotype and genotype marker data of parental lines.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Estimation of dam line composition of 3-way crossbred animals using genomic information.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022Article
- Imputation of non-genotyped F1 dams to improve genetic gain in swine crossbreeding programs.Journal of animal science · 2022Article
- Using egg production longitudinal recording to study the genetic background of resilience in purebred and crossbred laying hens.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2022Article
- Improving the Accuracy of Multi-Breed Prediction in Admixed Populations by Accounting for the Breed Origin of Haplotype Segments.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Breeding programs aiming to improve the performance of crossbreds may benefit from genomic prediction of crossbred (CB) performance for purebred (PB) selection candidates. In this review, we compared genomic prediction strategies that differed in 1) the genomic prediction model used or 2) the data used in the reference population. We found 27 unique studies, two of which used deterministic simulation, 11 used stochastic simulation, and 14 real data. Differences in accuracy and response to selection between strategies depended on i) the value of the purebred crossbred genetic correlation (rpc), ii) the genetic distance between the parental lines, iii) the size of PB and CB reference populations, and iv) the relatedness of these reference populations to the selection candidates. In studies where a PB reference population was used, the use of a dominance model yielded accuracies that were equal to or higher than those of additive models. When rpc was lower than ~0.8, and was caused mainly by G × E, it was beneficial to create a reference population of PB animals that are tested in a CB environment. In general, the benefit of collecting CB information increased with decreasing rpc. For a given rpc, the benefit of collecting CB information increased with increasing size of the reference populations. Collecting CB information was not beneficial when rpc was higher than ~0.9, especially when the reference populations were small. Collecting only phenotypes of CB animals may slightly improve accuracy and response to selection, but requires that the pedigree is known. It is, therefore, advisable to genotype these CB animals as well. Finally, considering the breed-origin of alleles allows for modeling breed-specific effects in the CB, but this did not always lead to higher accuracies. Our review shows that the differences in accuracy and response to selection between strategies depend on several factors. One of the most important factors is rpc, and we, therefore, recommend to obtain accurate estimates of rpc of all breeding goal traits. Furthermore, knowledge about the importance of components of rpc (i.e., dominance, epistasis, and G × E) can help breeders to decide which model to use, and whether to collect data on animals in a CB environment. Future research should focus on the development of a tool that predicts accuracy and response to selection from scenario specific parameters.
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.