ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2021
Evaluation of Bayesian alphabet and GBLUP based on different marker density for genomic prediction in Alpine Merino sheep.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- From linear models to deep learning: statistical advances in genomic selection for animal breeding.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Comparison of GBLUP and WGBLUP in genomic selection for beef cattle under different LD patterns and mixed multi-population scenarios: a simulation study.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- A Deep Autoencoder Compression-Based Genomic Prediction Method for Whole-Genome Sequencing Data.Biology · 2025Article
- Weighted GBLUP in Simulated Beef Cattle Populations: Impact of Reference Population, Marker Density, and Heritability.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Performance of weighted genomic BLUP and Bayesian methods for Hanwoo carcass traits.Tropical animal health and production · 2025Article
- Caprine and Ovine Genomic Selection-Progress and Application.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Review
- Stacked generalization as a computational method for the genomic selection.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Impacts of reference population size and methods on the accuracy of genomic prediction for fleece traits in Inner Mongolia Cashmere Goats.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Genomic Predictions in Korean Hanwoo Cows: A Comparative Analysis of Genomic BLUP and Bayesian Methods for Reproductive Traits.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Salinity stress tolerance prediction for biomass-related traits in maize (Zea mays L.) using genome-wide markers.The plant genome · 2023Article
- Using Pedigree and Genomic Data toward Better Management of Inbreeding in Italian Dairy Sheep and Goat Breeds.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Improvement of Genomic Predictions in Small Breeds by Construction of Genomic Relationship Matrix Through Variable Selection.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
15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The marker density, the heritability level of trait and the statistical models adopted are critical to the accuracy of genomic prediction (GP) or selection (GS). If the potential of GP is to be fully utilized to optimize the effect of breeding and selection, in addition to incorporating the above factors into simulated data for analysis, it is essential to incorporate these factors into real data for understanding their impact on GP accuracy, more clearly and intuitively. Herein, we studied the GP of six wool traits of sheep by two different models, including Bayesian Alphabet (BayesA, BayesB, BayesCπ, and Bayesian LASSO) and genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP). We adopted fivefold cross-validation to perform the accuracy evaluation based on the genotyping data of Alpine Merino sheep (n = 821). The main aim was to study the influence and interaction of different models and marker densities on GP accuracy. The GP accuracy of the six traits was found to be between 0.28 and 0.60, as demonstrated by the cross-validation results. We showed that the accuracy of GP could be improved by increasing the marker density, which is closely related to the model adopted and the heritability level of the trait. Moreover, based on two different marker densities, it was derived that the prediction effect of GBLUP model for traits with low heritability was better; while with the increase of heritability level, the advantage of Bayesian Alphabet would be more obvious, therefore, different models of GP are appropriate in different traits. These findings indicated the significance of applying appropriate models for GP which would assist in further exploring the optimization of GP.
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.