Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35752161›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2022

Correcting for base-population differences and unknown parent groups in single-step genomic predictions of Norwegian Red cattle.

Tesfaye K Belay, Leiv S Eikje, Arne B Gjuvsland, Øyvind Nordbø, Thierry Tribout, Theo Meuwissen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Tesfaye K BelayDepartment of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Ås, Norway.
Leiv S EikjeGENO SA, Storhamargata 44, 2317 Hamar, Norway.
Arne B GjuvslandGENO SA, Storhamargata 44, 2317 Hamar, Norway.
Øyvind NordbøGENO SA, Storhamargata 44, 2317 Hamar, Norway.
Thierry TriboutUniversité Paris Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, GABI, 78350 Jouy-en-Josas, France.
Theo MeuwissenDepartment of Animal and Aquacultural Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432 Ås, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bias and inflation in genomic evaluation with the single-step methods have been reported in several studies. Incompatibility between the base-populations of the pedigree-based and the genomic relationship matrix (G) could be a reason for these biases. Inappropriate ways of accounting for missing parents could be another reason for biases in genetic evaluations with or without genomic information. To handle these problems, we fitted and evaluated a fixed covariate (J) that contains ones for genotyped animals and zeros for unrelated non-genotyped animals, or pedigree-based regression coefficients for related non-genotyped animals. We also evaluated alternative ways of fitting the J covariate together with genetic groups on biases and stability of breeding value estimates, and of including it into G as a random effect. In a whole vs. partial data set comparison, four scenarios were investigated for the partial data: genotypes missing, phenotypes missing, both genotypes and phenotypes missing, and pedigree missing. Fitting J either as fixed or random reduced level-bias and inflation and increased stability of genomic predictions as compared to the basic model where neither J nor genetic groups were fitted. In most models, genomic predictions were largely biased for scenarios with missing genotype and phenotype information. The biases were reduced for models which combined group and J effects. Models with these corrected group covariates performed better than the recently published model where genetic groups were encapsulated and fitted as random via the Quaas and Pollak transformation. In our Norwegian Red cattle data, a model which combined group and J regression coefficients was preferred because it showed least bias and highest stability of genomic predictions across the scenarios.

Indexed as

GenomeModels, GeneticAnimalsCattleGenomicsNorwayPedigreePhenotypegenetic groupsinflationJ factorlevel-biasNorwegian Red cattlesingle-step genomic BLUP

Identifiers

PMID35752161
PMCPMC9467032

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.