Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34245361›Full record

ArticleTropical animal health and production2021

Comparison of three statistical approaches for feature selection for fine-scale genetic population assignment in four pig breeds.

Ichrak Hayah, Mouna Ababou, Sara Botti, Bouabid Badaoui

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Elucidation of population stratifying markers and selective sweeps in crossbred Landlly pig population using genome-wide SNP data.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

4 authors.

Ichrak HayahPlant and Microbial Biotechnologies, Biodiversity, and Environment (BioBio), Mohammed V University in Rabat, 4 Ibn Battouta Avenue, B.P. 1014 RP, Rabat, Morocco.
Mouna AbabouLaboratory of Human Pathologies, Genomic Center of Human Pathologies, Mohammed V University in Rabat, 4 Ibn Battouta Avenue, B.P. 1014 RP, Rabat, Morocco.
Sara Botti *PTP Science Park, Via Einstein - Loc. Cascina Codazza, 26900, Lodi, Italy.
Bouabid Badaoui *Plant and Microbial Biotechnologies, Biodiversity, and Environment (BioBio), Mohammed V University in Rabat, 4 Ibn Battouta Avenue, B.P. 1014 RP, Rabat, Morocco. bouabidbadaoui@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6808-1765

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssigning animals to their corresponding breeds through breed informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) is required in many fields. For instance, it is used in the traceability and the authentication of meat and other livestock products. SNPs' information for several pork breeds are now accessible thanks to the availability of dense SNP chips. These SNP chips cover a large number of molecular markers distributed across the entire genome. To identify the pork breed from a sample of industrial meat, one must analyze a large panel of genetic markers depending on the SNP chip used. The analysis of such large datasets requires intensive work. This leads to the idea of creating less dense chips of breed informative markers based on a reduced number of SNPs. Therefore, the analysis of the data emanating from the genotyping of these reduced chips will require less time and effort.

aimThe objective of this study is to find the most informative SNPs for the discrimination between four pig breeds, namely Duroc, Landrace, Large White, and Pietrain.

methodThe Illumina Porcine 60 k SNP chip was used to genotype SNPs distributed all over the individuals' genomes. Firstly, we used three different statistical approaches for feature selection: (i) principal component analysis (PCA), (ii) least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO), and (iii) random forest (RF). These three approaches identified three sets of SNPs; each set corresponds to one approach. Then, we combined the results of the three methods by setting up a final panel containing the SNPs which appear on the three sets altogether.

resultsSeparately, each method resulted in a panel with the corresponding most discriminating SNPs. The PCA, the LASSO, and the random forest with Boruta algorithm highlighted 28,816, 50, and 286 SNPs, respectively. The number of SNPs selected by PCA is high compared to Boruta and LASSO because PCA chooses the variables while preserving as much information about the data as possible. The only downside of LASSO regression is that among a group of correlated variables, LASSO tends to select only one variable and ignore the others regardless of their importance. Contrarily to LASSO, the Boruta algorithm considers the interdependence between SNPs and selects informative variables even if they are correlated and have the same effect. The three panels shared 23 SNPs; the distribution of the individuals according to these SNPs showed a grouping of individuals of each breed in well-defined clusters without any overlapping.

conclusionsThe biological pathways represented by 23 breed informative SNPs resulted by the combination of PCA, LASSO, and Boruta should be explored in further analysis. The results provided by our study are promising for further applications of this method in other livestock animals.

Indexed as

Genetics, PopulationPolymorphism, Single NucleotideAnimalsGenetic MarkersGenotypeOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSwineGenetic MarkersBorutaLeast absolute shrinkage and selection operatorPig breedsPrincipal component analysisRandom forestSingle-nucleotide polymorphism

Identifiers

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.