ArticleJournal of animal science2022
The prediction accuracies of linear-type traits in Czech Holstein cattle when using ssGBLUP or wssGBLUP.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhancing genomic prediction for key production traits in chickens through ultrasound phenotyping and multi-model comparative analysis.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluating Adjusted ssGBLUP Models for Genomic Prediction and Matrix Compatibility in South African Holstein Cattle.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the contribution of the weighted single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (wssGBLUP) method compared to the single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) method for genomic evaluation of 25 linear-type traits in the Czech Holstein cattle population. The nationwide database of linear-type traits with 6,99,681 records combined with deregressed proofs from Interbull (MACE method) was used as the input data. Genomic breeding values (GEBVs) were predicted based on these phenotypes using ssGBLUP and wssGBLUP methods using the BLUPF90 software. The bull validation test was employed which was based on comparing GEBVs of young bulls (N = 334) with no progeny in 2016. A minimum of 50 daughters with their own performance in 2020 was chosen to verify the contribution to the GEBV prediction, GEBV reliability, validation reliabilities (R2), and regression coefficients (b1). The results showed that the differences between the two methods were negligible. The low benefit of wssGBLUP may be due to the inclusion of a small number of SNPs; therefore, most predictions rely on polygenic relationships between animals. Nevertheless, the benefits of wssGBLUP analysis should be assessed with respect to specific population structures and given traits.
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.