Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36932324›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2023

Genomic evaluation for two-way crossbred performance in cattle.

Quanshun Mei, Huiming Liu, Shuhong Zhao, Tao Xiang, Ole F Christensen

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Quanshun MeiKey Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Ministry of Education & Key Laboratory of Swine Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, China.
Huiming LiuSEGES Cattle, Agrofood Park 15, 8200, Aarhus N, Denmark.
Shuhong ZhaoKey Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Ministry of Education & Key Laboratory of Swine Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, China.
Tao XiangKey Laboratory of Agricultural Animal Genetics, Breeding and Reproduction of Ministry of Education & Key Laboratory of Swine Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture, Huazhong Agricultural University, Wuhan, 430070, China. tao.xiang@mail.hzau.edu.cn.
Ole F ChristensenCenter for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, C. F. Møllers Allé 3, 8000, Aarhus C, Denmark. olef.christensen@qgg.au.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8230-8062

Funding

GUDP 34009-18-1434National key R&D program of China 2019YFE0115400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDairy cattle production systems are mostly based on purebreds, but recently the use of crossbreeding has received increased interest. For genetic evaluations including crossbreds, several methods based on single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) have been proposed, including metafounder ssGBLUP (MF-ssGBLUP) and breed-specific ssGBLUP (BS-ssGBLUP). Ideally, models that account for breed effects should perform better than simple models, but knowledge on the performance of these methods is lacking for two-way crossbred cattle. In addition, the differences in the estimates of genetic parameters (such as the genetic variance component and heritability) between these methods have rarely been investigated. Therefore, the aims of this study were to (1) compare the estimates of genetic parameters for average daily gain (ADG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) between these methods; and (2) evaluate the impact of these methods on the predictive ability for crossbred performance.

methodsBivariate models using standard ssGBLUP, MF-ssGBLUP and BS-ssGBLUP for the genetic evaluation of ADG and FCR were investigated. To measure the predictive ability of these three methods, we estimated four estimators, bias, dispersion, population accuracy and ratio of population accuracies, using the linear regression (LR) method.

resultsThe results show that, for both ADG and FCR, the heritabilities were low with the three methods. For FCR, the differences in the estimated genetic parameters were small between the three methods, while for ADG, those estimated with BS-ssGBLUP deviated largely from those estimated with the other two methods. Bias and dispersion were similar across the three methods. Population accuracies for both ADG and FCR were always higher with MF-ssGBLUP than with ssGBLUP, while with BS-ssGBLUP the population accuracy was highest for FCR and lowest for ADG.

conclusionsOur results indicate that in the genetic evaluation for crossbred performance in a two-way crossbred cattle production system, the predictive ability of MF-ssGBLUP and BS-ssGBLUP is greater than that of ssGBLUP, when the estimated variance components are consistent across the three methods. Compared with BS-ssGBLUP, MF-ssGBLUP is more robust in its superiority over ssGBLUP.

Indexed as

GenomeModels, GeneticAnimalsCattleGenomicsGenotypeHybridization, GeneticPhenotypePolymorphism, Single Nucleotide

Identifiers

PMID36932324
PMCPMC10022181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read33
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.