Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39569758›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie2025

The Effect of Preselection on the Level of Bias and Accuracy in a Broiler Breeder Population, a Simulation Study.

Charlie A de Hollander, Thinh T Chu, Danye Marois, Vivian B Felipe, Fernando B Lopes, Mario P L Calus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Charlie A de HollanderCobb Vantress Inc, Siloam Springs, Arkansas, USA.
Thinh T ChuDepartment of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Aarhus University, Tjele, Denmark.
Danye MaroisCobb Vantress Inc, Siloam Springs, Arkansas, USA.
Vivian B FelipeCobb Vantress Inc, Siloam Springs, Arkansas, USA.
Fernando B LopesCobb Vantress Inc, Siloam Springs, Arkansas, USA.
Mario P L CalusAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3213-704X

Funding

Cobb Vantress, Inc.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Many breeding programmes have to perform preselection, as genotyping and phenotyping all potential breeder candidates is often not a feasible option. There is need to understand how preselection affects the quality of the genomic estimated breeding values (EBVs) at final selection and thereby can affect genetic progress. This simulation study evaluated nine different preselection strategies in a broiler breeder programme and their effect on the quality of the (genomic) EBVs and genetic progress for three different traits: body weight (Body Weight), residual feed intake (RFI) and body weight gain (Gain). All birds have Body Weight recorded at preselection, but only the preselected birds were phenotyped for RFI and Gain and genotyped. The following criteria and intensities were studied: preselection based on phenotypic Body Weight (P), on a BLUP index (B) or on an ssGBLUP Index (G). Additionally, all criteria were studied with three different selection intensities, 10% of the males and 30% of the females (P10, B10, G10), 15% of the males and 45% of the females (P15, B15, G15) and 20% of the males and 60% of the females (P20, B20, G20). The accuracy at preselection with G10 was more accurate than B10 for both RFI and Gain (0.71 vs. 0.58 and 0.65 vs. 0.55 respectively), and also G15 was more accurate than B15 for both RFI and Gain (0.72 vs. 0.63 and 0.67 vs. 0.64 respectively); thus, the difference in accuracy reduces with an increasing number of birds being preselected. Differences in accuracy at final selection were mostly notable in the RFI trait between P10, B10 and G10, where G10 showed the highest accuracy (0.82 vs. 0.84 vs. 0.86 respectively). This difference in accuracy for RFI disappeared when more animals were preselected. For Body Weight and Gain, the BLUP preselection resulted in the highest accuracy at final selection when selection intensity decreased. The dispersion bias of EBVs at final selection was most pronounced in the P10 and P15 for Body Weight (0.81 and 0.92) but disappeared at P20 (0.97). The dispersion bias for all other criteria and traits was relatively small. Genetic progress was mostly affected when P10 or P15 was used at preselection, where the progress in Body Weight was noticeably higher, but prominently lower for RFI and Gain. The BLUP and ssGBLUP preselection had very similar genetic progress across traits and showed comparable improvements in the selection index. In conclusion, with high preselection intensity, the use of ssGBLUP at preselection might be favoured as there is an improvement in genetic progress across traits in all scenarios, which is due to the increased preselection accuracy. When preselection intensity decreases, the benefit of using ssGBLUP over BLUP at preselection disappears.

Indexed as

BreedingChickensSelection, GeneticAnimalsBody WeightComputer SimulationFemaleGenotypeMaleModels, GeneticPhenotypeaccuracybiasbroiler breedingpreselection

Identifiers

PMID39569758
PMCPMC12149501

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.