ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2022
Theoretical accuracy for indirect predictions based on SNP effects from single-step GBLUP.
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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genotyping errors can affect indirect predictions of young selection candidates: A simulation study.JDS communications · 2026Article
- Evaluating Adjusted ssGBLUP Models for Genomic Prediction and Matrix Compatibility in South African Holstein Cattle.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Indirect Genomic Predictions for Indicine Cattle Breeds With SNP Effects From a Multi-Breed Genomic Evaluation.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026Article
- Preliminary Evaluation of Blending, Tuning, and Scaling Parameters in ssGBLUP for Genomic Prediction Accuracy in South African Holstein Cattle.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Practical Considerations When Using Mendelian Sampling Variances for Selection Decisions in Genomic Selection Programs.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025Article
- Optimizing the performance of large genomic evaluations through data truncation in Angus cattle.Journal of animal science · 2025Article
- Applying the algorithm for Proven and young in GWAS Reveals high polygenicity for key traits in Nellore cattle.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
- Temporal dynamics of genetic parameters and SNP effects for performance and disorder traits in poultry undergoing genomic selection.Journal of animal science · 2024Article
- Correction: Theoretical accuracy for indirect predictions based on SNP effects from single-step GBLUP.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2023Article
- Genomic evaluation of commercial herds with different pedigree structures using the single-step genomic BLUP in Nelore cattle.Tropical animal health and production · 2023Article
- Derivation of indirect predictions using genomic recursions across generations in a broiler population.Journal of animal science · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) is an animal model, SNP effects can be backsolved from genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). Predicted SNP effects allow to compute indirect prediction (IP) per individual as the sum of the SNP effects multiplied by its gene content, which is helpful when the number of genotyped animals is large, for genotyped animals not in the official evaluations, and when interim evaluations are needed. Typically, IP are obtained for new batches of genotyped individuals, all of them young and without phenotypes. Individual (theoretical) accuracies for IP are rarely reported, but they are nevertheless of interest. Our first objective was to present equations to compute individual accuracy of IP, based on prediction error covariance (PEC) of SNP effects, and in turn, are obtained from PEC of GEBV in ssGBLUP. The second objective was to test the algorithm for proven and young (APY) in PEC computations. With large datasets, it is impossible to handle the full PEC matrix, thus the third objective was to examine the minimum number of genotyped animals needed in PEC computations to achieve IP accuracies that are equivalent to GEBV accuracies.
resultsCorrelations between GEBV and IP for the validation animals using SNP effects from ssGBLUP evaluations were ≥ 0.99. When all available genotyped animals were used for PEC computations, correlations between GEBV and IP accuracy were ≥ 0.99. In addition, IP accuracies were compatible with GEBV accuracies either with direct inversion of the genomic relationship matrix (G) or using the algorithm for proven and young (APY) to obtain the inverse of G. As the number of genotyped animals included in the PEC computations decreased from around 55,000 to 15,000, correlations were still ≥ 0.96, but IP accuracies were biased downwards.
conclusionsTheoretical accuracy of indirect prediction can be successfully obtained by computing SNP PEC out of GEBV PEC from ssGBLUP equations using direct or APY G inverse. It is possible to reduce the number of genotyped animals in PEC computations, but accuracies may be underestimated. Further research is needed to approximate SNP PEC from ssGBLUP to limit the computational requirements with many genotyped animals.
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.