Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34359120›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2021

Impact of Marker Pruning Strategies Based on Different Measurements of Marker Distance on Genomic Prediction in Dairy Cattle.

Duanyang Ren, Jinyan Teng, Shuqi Diao, Qing Lin, Jiaqi Li, Zhe Zhang

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Duanyang RenGuangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture/Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7786-6748
Jinyan TengGuangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture/Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.ORCID 0000-0002-3046-1452
Shuqi DiaoGuangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture/Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7017-7595
Qing LinGuangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture/Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Jiaqi LiGuangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture/Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Zhe ZhangGuangdong Laboratory of Lingnan Modern Agriculture/Guangdong Provincial Key Lab of Agro-Animal Genomics and Molecular Breeding, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.ORCID 0000-0001-7338-7718
South China Agricultural University · CN

Funding

Earmarked Fund for China Agriculture Research System CARS-35National Natural Science Foundation of China 32022078
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With the availability of high-density single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data and the development of genotype imputation methods, high-density panel-based genomic prediction (GP) has become possible in livestock breeding. It is generally considered that the genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) accuracy increases with the marker density, while studies have shown that the GEBV accuracy does not increase or even decrease when high-density panels were used. Therefore, in addition to the SNP number, other measurements of 'marker density' seem to have impacts on the GEBV accuracy, and exploring the relationship between the GEBV accuracy and the measurements of 'marker density' based on high-density SNP or whole-genome sequence data is important for the field of GP. In this study, we constructed different SNP panels with certain SNP numbers (e.g., 1 k) by using the physical distance (PhyD), genetic distance (GenD) and random distance (RanD) between SNPs respectively based on the high-density SNP data of a Germany Holstein dairy cattle population. Therefore, there are three different panels at a certain SNP number level. These panels were used to construct GP models to predict fat percentage, milk yield and somatic cell score. Meanwhile, the mean (d¯) and variance (σd2) of the physical distance between SNPs and the mean (r2¯) and variance (σr22) of the genetic distance between SNPs in each panel were used as marker density-related measurements and their influence on the GEBV accuracy was investigated. At the same SNP number level, the d¯ of all panels is basically the same, but the σd2, r2¯ and σr22 are different. Therefore, we only investigated the effects of σd2, r2¯ and σr22 on the GEBV accuracy. The results showed that at a certain SNP number level, the GEBV accuracy was negatively correlated with σd2, but not with r2¯ and σr22. Compared with GenD and RanD, the σd2 of panels constructed by PhyD is smaller. The low and moderate-density panels (< 50 k) constructed by RanD or GenD have large σd2, which is not conducive to genomic prediction. The GEBV accuracy of the low and moderate-density panels constructed by PhyD is 3.8~34.8% higher than that of the low and moderate-density panels constructed by RanD and GenD. Panels with 20-30 k SNPs constructed by PhyD can achieve the same or slightly higher GEBV accuracy than that of high-density SNP panels for all three traits. In summary, the smaller the variation degree of physical distance between adjacent SNPs, the higher the GEBV accuracy. The low and moderate-density panels construct by physical distance are beneficial to genomic prediction, while pruning high-density SNP data based on genetic distance is detrimental to genomic prediction. The results provide suggestions for the development of SNP panels and the research of genome prediction based on whole-genome sequence data.

Indexed as

genetic distancegenomic predictionhigh-density SNP dataHolstein dairy cattlemarker densityphysical distance

Identifiers

PMID34359120
PMCPMC8300388
OpenAlexW3176497830

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.