Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37161604›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2023

Improving the accuracy of genomic prediction for meat quality traits using whole genome sequence data in pigs.

Zhanwei Zhuang, Jie Wu, Yibin Qiu, Donglin Ruan, Rongrong Ding, Cineng Xu, Shenping Zhou, Yuling Zhang, Yiyi Liu, Fucai Ma and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

17 authors.

Zhanwei ZhuangCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Jie WuCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Yibin QiuCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Donglin RuanCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Rongrong DingCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Cineng XuCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Shenping ZhouCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Yuling ZhangCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Yiyi LiuCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Fucai MaCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Jifei YangCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Ying SunCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Enqin ZhengCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Ming YangCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou, 510225, China.
Gengyuan CaiCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China.
Jie YangCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China. jieyang2012@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7031-2160
Zhenfang WuCollege of Animal Science and National Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China. wzfemail@163.com.

Funding

Innovative Teams of Modern Agriculture and Industry Technology System of Guangdong Province 2022KJ26Local Innovative and Research Teams Project of Guangdong Province 2019BT02N630Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province project 2018B030313011Technical Innovation of Crossbred in Swine and Breed High Fertility Lines Project 2022B0202090002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPork quality can directly affect customer purchase tendency and meat quality traits have become valuable in modern pork production. However, genetic improvement has been slow due to high phenotyping costs. In this study, whole genome sequence (WGS) data was used to evaluate the prediction accuracy of genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) for meat quality in large-scale crossbred commercial pigs.

resultsWe produced WGS data (18,695,907 SNPs and 2,106,902 INDELs exceed quality control) from 1,469 sequenced Duroc × (Landrace × Yorkshire) pigs and developed a reference panel for meat quality including meat color score, marbling score, L* (lightness), a* (redness), and b* (yellowness) of genomic prediction. The prediction accuracy was defined as the Pearson correlation coefficient between adjusted phenotypes and genomic estimated breeding values in the validation population. Using different marker density panels derived from WGS data, accuracy differed substantially among meat quality traits, varied from 0.08 to 0.47. Results showed that MultiBLUP outperform GBLUP and yielded accuracy increases ranging from 17.39% to 75%. We optimized the marker density and found medium- and high-density marker panels are beneficial for the estimation of heritability for meat quality. Moreover, we conducted genotype imputation from 50K chip to WGS level in the same population and found average concordance rate to exceed 95% and r

conclusionsOverall, estimation of heritability for meat quality traits can benefit from the use of WGS data. This study showed the superiority of using WGS data to genetically improve pork quality in genomic prediction.

Indexed as

Genomic predictionMeat qualityPigsWhole genome sequence

Identifiers

PMID37161604
PMCPMC10170792

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.