ArticleJournal of animal science2024
Combining large broiler populations into a single genomic evaluation: dealing with genetic divergence.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Combining breeding populations that have diverged at some point is a conventional practice, particularly in the poultry industry, where generation intervals are short and genetic evaluations should be frequently available. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of combining large, distantly genetically connected broiler populations into a single genomic evaluation within the single-step GBLUP framework. The pedigree data for broiler lines 1 and 2 consisted of 428,790 and 477,488 animals, being 156,088 and 186,387 genotyped, respectively. Phenotypic data for body weight (kg), carcass yield (%), mortality (1 to 2), and feet health (1 to 7) were collected for 397,974 animals in line 1 and 458,881 in line 2. A 4-trait model was employed for the analyses, and genetic differences between the populations were addressed through different approaches: introducing an additional fixed effect accounting for the line of origin (M2) or making each fixed effect origin-specific (M3). Those models were compared against a conventional model (M1) that did not account for animal origin in the evaluation. Unknown parent groups (UPG) and Metafounders (MF) were fit to account for the genetic differences in M1, M2, and M3; they were set based on the animal's line of origin and sex. Accuracy, bias, and dispersion were used to assess the performances of the models using the Linear Regression method. Validations were performed separately within individual lines and collectively after combining the 2 lines to better assess the advantages of combining the 2 populations. Overall, the accuracy increased when the 2 populations were combined compared to the accuracies obtained from evaluating each line individually. Notably, there were no apparent differences among the models regarding accuracy and dispersion. Regarding bias, using models M2 or M3 with UPG yields the least biased estimates in the combined evaluation. Thus, when combining different populations into a single genomic evaluation, accounting for the genetic and non-genetic differences among the lines ensures accurate and less biased predictions.
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.