ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2023
Efficient large-scale single-step evaluations and indirect genomic prediction of genotyped selection candidates.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Approximating prediction error variances and reliabilities in a multiple-trait genomic prediction model using Monte Carlo sampling.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Article
- 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
- Opportunities and computational challenges in large-scale whole-genome sequencing data analysis.Journal of animal science · 2026Review
- ASAS-NANP SYMPOSIUM: MATHEMATICAL MODELING IN ANIMAL NUTRITION: quantum computing in agricultural sciences: from theory to reality.Journal of animal science · 2026Review
- Genetic Strategies for Enhancing Rooster Fertility in Tropical and Humid Climates: Challenges and Opportunities.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Feed efficiency and fecal microbiome of nursery pigs from parents with divergent breeding value for feed conversion ratio.Translational animal science · 2025Article
- A computationally feasible multi-trait single-step genomic prediction model with trait-specific marker weights.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2024Article
- Derivation of indirect predictions using genomic recursions across generations in a broiler population.Journal of animal science · 2023Article
- Accelerated matrix-vector multiplications for matrices involving genotype covariates with applications in genomic prediction.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSingle-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) models allow the combination of genomic, pedigree, and phenotypic data into a single model, which is computationally challenging for large genotyped populations. In practice, genotypes of animals without their own phenotype and progeny, so-called genotyped selection candidates, can become available after genomic breeding values have been estimated by ssGBLUP. In some breeding programmes, genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) for these animals should be known shortly after obtaining genotype information but recomputing GEBV using the full ssGBLUP takes too much time. In this study, first we compare two equivalent formulations of ssGBLUP models, i.e. one that is based on the Woodbury matrix identity applied to the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix, and one that is based on marker equations. Second, we present computationally-fast approaches to indirectly compute GEBV for genotyped selection candidates, without the need to do the full ssGBLUP evaluation.
resultsThe indirect approaches use information from the latest ssGBLUP evaluation and rely on the decomposition of GEBV into its components. The two equivalent ssGBLUP models and indirect approaches were tested on a six-trait calving difficulty model using Irish dairy and beef cattle data that include 2.6 million genotyped animals of which about 500,000 were considered as genotyped selection candidates. When using the same computational approaches, the solving phase of the two equivalent ssGBLUP models showed similar requirements for memory and time per iteration. The computational differences between them were due to the preprocessing phase of the genomic information. Regarding the indirect approaches, compared to GEBV obtained from single-step evaluations including all genotypes, indirect GEBV had correlations higher than 0.99 for all traits while showing little dispersion and level bias.
conclusionsIn conclusion, ssGBLUP predictions for the genotyped selection candidates were accurately approximated using the presented indirect approaches, which are more memory efficient and computationally fast, compared to solving a full ssGBLUP evaluation. Thus, indirect approaches can be used even on a weekly basis to estimate GEBV for newly genotyped animals, while the full single-step evaluation is done only a few times within a year.
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.