Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37291510›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2023

Efficient large-scale single-step evaluations and indirect genomic prediction of genotyped selection candidates.

Jeremie Vandenplas, Jan Ten Napel, Saeid Naderi Darbaghshahi, Ross Evans, Mario P L Calus, Roel Veerkamp, Andrew Cromie, Esa A Mäntysaari, Ismo Strandén

Abstract 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 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. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  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

9 authors.

Jeremie Vandenplas *Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. jeremie.vandenplas@wur.l.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2554-072X
Jan Ten NapelWageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Saeid Naderi DarbaghshahiIrish Cattle Breeding Federation, Highfield House, Newcestown Road, Bandon, Cork, Ireland.
Ross EvansIrish Cattle Breeding Federation, Highfield House, Newcestown Road, Bandon, Cork, Ireland.
Mario P L CalusWageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Roel VeerkampWageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Andrew CromieIrish Cattle Breeding Federation, Highfield House, Newcestown Road, Bandon, Cork, Ireland.
Esa A MäntysaariNatural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokioinen, Finland.
Ismo Strandén *Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke), Jokioinen, Finland.

Funding

Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs TKI Agri & Food Project 16022Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken LWV20054
6 · The paper itself

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

GenomeModels, GeneticAnimalsCattleGenomicsGenotypePedigreePhenotype

Identifiers

PMID37291510
PMCPMC10251624

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.