ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2022
Predictive performances of animal models using different multibreed relationship matrices in systems with rotational crossbreeding.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2022. 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.
- Comparison between repeatability, reproductive stage stratified repeatability, and relative risk models for prediction of breeding values for functional survival in rotationally crossbred sows.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Evaluation of crossbreeding strategies for improved adaptation and productivity in African smallholder cattle farms.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Simulation of functional additive and non-additive genetic effects using statistical estimates from quantitative genetic models.Heredity · 2024Article
- Definition of metafounders based on population structure analysis.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024Article
- MAGE: metafounders-assisted genomic estimation of breeding value, a novel additive-dominance single-step model in crossbreeding systems.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Segregation between breeds and local breed proportions in genetic and genomic models for crossbreds.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Genomic evaluation for two-way crossbred performance in cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Reliabilities of estimated breeding values in models with metafounders.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Accounting for population structure in genomic predictions of Eucalyptus globulus.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2022Article
- Single-step genomic BLUP with many metafounders.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
Abstract
backgroundIn livestock breeding, selection for some traits can be improved with direct selection for crossbred performance. However, genetic analyses with phenotypes from crossbred animals require methods for multibreed relationship matrices; especially when some animals are rotationally crossbred. Multiple methods for multibreed relationship matrices exist, but there is a lack of knowledge on how these methods compare for prediction of breeding values with phenotypes from rotationally crossbred animals. Therefore, the objective of this study was to compare models that use different multibreed relationship matrices in terms of ability to predict accurate and unbiased breeding values with phenotypes from two-way rotationally crossbred animals.
methodsWe compared four methods for multibreed relationship matrices: numerator relationship matrices (NRM), García-Cortés and Toro's partial relationship matrices (GT), Strandén and Mäntysaari's approximation to the GT method (SM), and one NRM with metafounders (MF). The methods were compared using simulated data. We simulated two phenotypes; one with and one without dominance effects. Only crossbred animals were phenotyped and only purebred animals were genotyped.
resultsThe MF and GT methods were the most accurate and least biased methods for prediction of breeding values in rotationally crossbred animals. Without genomic information, all methods were almost equally accurate for prediction of breeding values in purebred animals; however, with genomic information, the MF and GT methods were the most accurate. The GT, MF, and SM methods were the least biased methods for prediction of breeding values in purebred animals.
conclusionsFor prediction of breeding values with phenotypes from rotationally crossbred animals, models using the MF method or the GT method were generally more accurate and less biased than models using the SM method or the NRM method.
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.