Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35387581›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2022

Predictive performances of animal models using different multibreed relationship matrices in systems with rotational crossbreeding.

Bjarke Grove Poulsen, Tage Ostersen, Bjarne Nielsen, Ole Fredslund Christensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Definition of metafounders based on population structure analysis.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Genomic evaluation for two-way crossbred performance in cattle.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Bjarke Grove PoulsenBreeding & Genetics, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, Copenhagen W, 1609, Copenhagen, Denmark. bgp@lf.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3589-2008
Tage OstersenBreeding & Genetics, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, Copenhagen W, 1609, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Bjarne NielsenBreeding & Genetics, Danish Agriculture and Food Council, Axelborg, Axeltorv 3, Copenhagen W, 1609, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ole Fredslund ChristensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.

Funding

Innovationsfonden 9065-00070B
6 · The paper itself

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

Hybridization, GeneticModels, GeneticAnimalsGenomeGenotypeModels, AnimalPhenotype

Identifiers

PMID35387581
PMCPMC8988428

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.