ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2024
Genotyping both live and dead animals to improve post-weaning survival of pigs in breeding programs.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of genetic defects in breeding programs of species with high prolificacy.Journal of animal science · 2026Article
- Methodologies to Identify Metabolic Pathway Differences Between Emaciated and Moderately Conditioned Horses: A Review of Multiple Gene Expression Techniques.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we tested whether genotyping both live and dead animals (GSD) realises more genetic gain for post-weaning survival (PWS) in pigs compared to genotyping only live animals (GOS).
methodsStochastic simulation was used to estimate the rate of genetic gain realised by GSD and GOS at a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding in three breeding schemes, which differed in PWS (95%, 90% and 50%) and litter size (6 and 10). Pedigree-based selection was conducted as a point of reference. Variance components were estimated and then estimated breeding values (EBV) were obtained in each breeding scheme using a linear or a threshold model. Selection was for a single trait, i.e. PWS with a heritability of 0.02 on the observed scale. The trait was simulated on the underlying scale and was recorded as binary (0/1). Selection candidates were genotyped and phenotyped before selection, with only live candidates eligible for selection. Genotyping strategies differed in the proportion of live and dead animals genotyped, but the phenotypes of all animals were used for predicting EBV of the selection candidates.
resultsBased on a 0.01 rate of pedigree-based inbreeding, GSD realised 14 to 33% more genetic gain than GOS for all breeding schemes depending on PWS and litter size. GSD increased the prediction accuracy of EBV for PWS by at least 14% compared to GOS. The use of a linear versus a threshold model did not have an impact on genetic gain for PWS regardless of the genotyping strategy and the bias of the EBV did not differ significantly among genotyping strategies.
conclusionsGenotyping both dead and live animals was more informative than genotyping only live animals to predict the EBV for PWS of selection candidates, but with marginal increases in genetic gain when the proportion of dead animals genotyped was 60% or greater. Therefore, it would be worthwhile to use genomic information on both live and more than 20% dead animals to compute EBV for the genetic improvement of PWS under the assumption that dead animals reflect increased liability on the underlying scale.
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.