Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38200758›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Genomic Predictions in Korean Hanwoo Cows: A Comparative Analysis of Genomic BLUP and Bayesian Methods for Reproductive Traits.

Md Azizul Haque, Yun-Mi Lee, Jae-Jung Ha, Shil Jin, Byoungho Park, Nam-Young Kim, Jeong-Il Won, Jong-Joo Kim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 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. Review
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of genomic breeding values and accuracy for carcass traits in Korean Hanwoo cows using whole-genome SNP chip panels.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Md Azizul HaqueDepartment of Biotechnology, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 38541, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5158-4558
Yun-Mi LeeDepartment of Biotechnology, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 38541, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3023-7474
Jae-Jung HaGyeongbuk Livestock Research Institute, Yeongju 36052, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6785-6346
Shil JinHanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Pyeongchang 25340, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1120-3631
Byoungho ParkHanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Pyeongchang 25340, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6195-4519
Nam-Young KimHanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Pyeongchang 25340, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-2679-4983
Jeong-Il WonHanwoo Research Institute, National Institute of Animal Science, Pyeongchang 25340, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-3151-7144
Jong-Joo KimDepartment of Biotechnology, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan 38541, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-9687-0075

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to predict the accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) for reproductive traits in Hanwoo cows using the GBLUP, BayesB, BayesLASSO, and BayesR methods. Accuracy estimates of GEBVs for reproductive traits were derived through fivefold cross-validation, analyzing a dataset comprising 11,348 animals and employing an Illumina Bovine 50K SNP chip. GBLUP showed an accuracy of 0.26 for AFC, while BayesB, BayesLASSO, and BayesR demonstrated values of 0.28, 0.29, and 0.29, respectively. For CI, GBLUP attained an accuracy of 0.19, whereas BayesB, BayesLASSO, and BayesR scored 0.21, 0.24, and 0.25, respectively. The accuracy for GL was uniform across GBLUP, BayesB, and BayesR at 0.31, whereas BayesLASSO showed a slightly higher accuracy of 0.33. For NAIPC, GBLUP showed an accuracy of 0.24, while BayesB, BayesLASSO, and BayesR recorded 0.22, 0.27, and 0.30, respectively. The variation in genomic prediction accuracy among methods indicated Bayesian approaches slightly outperformed GBLUP. The findings suggest that Bayesian methods, notably BayesLASSO and BayesR, offer improved predictive capabilities for reproductive traits. Future research may explore more advanced genomic approaches to enhance predictive accuracy and genetic gains in Hanwoo cattle breeding programs.

Indexed as

Bayesian methodsGBLUPgenomic predictionHanwooreproductive traits

Identifiers

PMID38200758
PMCPMC10778388

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.