Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34620083›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2021

Single-step genomic evaluation with metafounders for feed conversion ratio and average daily gain in Danish Landrace and Yorkshire pigs.

Chuanke Fu, Tage Ostersen, Ole F Christensen, Tao Xiang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Strategies for genomic predictions of an indicine multi-breed population using single-step GBLUP.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  5. Genomic evaluation for two-way crossbred performance in cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. A Note on the Conditioning of theAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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.

Chuanke FuKey Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Ministry of Education & Key Laboratory of Swine Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, China.
Tage OstersenSEGES, Danish Agriculture & Food Council F.m.b.A., Agro Food Park 15, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Ole F ChristensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, Blichers Alle 20, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Tao XiangKey Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Ministry of Education & Key Laboratory of Swine Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, China. Tao.Xiang@mail.hzau.edu.cn.

Funding

china agriculture research system of mof and mara CARS-35Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities 2662020DKPY005Major Science and Technology Projects in Hubei Province 2020ABA016National Natural Science Foundation of China 31802039
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (SSGBLUP) method is a popular approach for genetic evaluation with high-density genotype data. To solve the problem that pedigree and genomic relationship matrices refer to different base populations, a single-step genomic method with metafounders (MF-SSGBLUP) was put forward. The aim of this study was to compare the predictive ability and bias of genomic evaluations obtained with MF-SSGBLUP and standard SSGBLUP. We examined feed conversion ratio (FCR) and average daily gain (ADG) in DanBred Landrace (LL) and Yorkshire (YY) pigs using both univariate and bivariate models, as well as the optimal weighting factors (ω), which represent the proportions of the genetic variance not captured by markers, for ADG and FCR in SSGBLUP and MF-SSGBLUP.

resultsIn general, SSGBLUP and MF-SSGBLUP showed similar predictive abilities and bias of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). In the LL population, the predictive ability for ADG reached 0.36 using uni- or bi-variate SSGBLUP or MF-SSGBLUP, while the predictive ability for FCR was highest (0.20) for the bivariate model using MF-SSGBLUP, but differences between analyses were very small. In the YY population, predictive ability for ADG was similar for the four analyses (up to 0.35), while the predictive ability for FCR was highest (0.36) for the uni- and bi-variate MF-SSGBLUP analyses. SSGBLUP and MF-SSGBLUP exhibited nearly the same bias. In general, the bivariate models had lower bias than the univariate models. In the LL population, the optimal ω for ADG was ~ 0.2 in the univariate or bivariate models using SSGBLUP or MF-SSGBLUP, and the optimal ω for FCR was 0.70 and 0.55 for SSGBLUP and MF-SSGBLUP, respectively. In the YY population, the optimal ω ranged from 0.25 to 0. 35 for ADG across the four analyses and from 0.10 to 0.30 for FCR.

conclusionsOur results indicate that MF-SSGBLUP performed slightly better than SSGBLUP for genomic evaluation. There was little difference in the optimal weighting factors (ω) between SSGBLUP and MF-SSGBLUP. Overall, the bivariate model using MF-SSGBLUP is recommended for single-step genomic evaluation of ADG and FCR in DanBred Landrace and Yorkshire pigs.

Indexed as

GenomeModels, GeneticAnimalsDenmarkGenomicsGenotypePedigreePhenotypeSwine

Identifiers

PMID34620083
PMCPMC8499570

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.