Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36386803›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2022

Impact of epistasis effects on the accuracy of predicting phenotypic values of residual feed intake in U. S Holstein cows.

Zuoxiang Liang, Dzianis Prakapenka, Kristen L Parker Gaddis, Michael J VandeHaar, Kent A Weigel, Robert J Tempelman, James E Koltes, José Eduardo P Santos, Heather M White, Francisco Peñagaricano and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 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
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Large-Sample Genomic Data Mining for Quantitative Traits in U.S. Holstein Cows.Journal of data mining in genomics & proteomics · 2024
    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

12 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Zuoxiang LiangDepartment of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.
Dzianis PrakapenkaDepartment of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.
Kristen L Parker GaddisCouncil on Dairy Cattle Breeding, Bowie, MD, United States.
Michael J VandeHaarDepartment of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
Kent A WeigelDepartment of Animal and Dairy Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Robert J TempelmanDepartment of Animal Science, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, United States.
James E KoltesDepartment of Animal Science, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, United States.
José Eduardo P SantosDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.
Heather M WhiteDepartment of Animal and Dairy Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Francisco PeñagaricanoDepartment of Animal and Dairy Sciences, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, United States.
Ransom L Baldwin ViAnimal Genomics and Improvement Laboratory, ARS, USDA, Beltsville, MD, United States.
Yang DaDepartment of Animal Science, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul, MN, United States.
University of Minnesota · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · USMichigan State University · USAgricultural Research Service · USDairy Management · USIowa State University · USUniversity of Florida · US

Funding

Genomic discovery and prediction for quantitative traits with complex genetic mechanismsR01HG012425 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI DA, YANG · 2022 to 2024
$729k
NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG012425
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The impact of genomic epistasis effects on the accuracy of predicting the phenotypic values of residual feed intake (RFI) in U.S. Holstein cows was evaluated using 6215 Holstein cows and 78,964 SNPs. Two SNP models and seven epistasis models were initially evaluated. Heritability estimates and the accuracy of predicting the RFI phenotypic values from 10-fold cross-validation studies identified the model with SNP additive effects and additive × additive (A×A) epistasis effects (A + A×A model) to be the best prediction model. Under the A + A×A model, additive heritability was 0.141, and A×A heritability was 0.263 that consisted of 0.260 inter-chromosome A×A heritability and 0.003 intra-chromosome A×A heritability, showing that inter-chromosome A×A effects were responsible for the accuracy increases due to A×A. Under the SNP additive model (A-only model), the additive heritability was 0.171. In the 10 validation populations, the average accuracy for predicting the RFI phenotypic values was 0.246 (with range 0.197-0.333) under A + A×A model and was 0.231 (with range of 0.188-0.319) under the A-only model. The average increase in the accuracy of predicting the RFI phenotypic values by the A + A×A model over the A-only model was 6.49% (with range of 3.02-14.29%). Results in this study showed A×A epistasis effects had a positive impact on the accuracy of predicting the RFI phenotypic values when combined with additive effects in the prediction model.

Indexed as

epistasisGBLUPgenomic predictionGREMLheritabilityholsteinRFISNP

Identifiers

PMID36386803
PMCPMC9664219
OpenAlexW4307854636

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.