ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2025
Evaluation of genomic selection models using whole genome sequence data and functional annotation in Belgian Blue cattle.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2025. 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.
- Non-Coding Negative Regulatory Features in Livestock Genomes: Functional Annotation and Causal Validation.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Topic "Application of Reproductive and Genomic Biotechnologies for Livestock Breeding and Selection".International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe availability of large cohorts of whole-genome sequenced individuals, combined with functional annotation, is expected to provide opportunities to improve the accuracy of genomic selection (GS). However, such benefits have not often been observed in initial applications. The reference population for GS in Belgian Blue Cattle (BBC) continues to grow. Combined with the availability of reference panels of sequenced individuals, it provides an opportunity to evaluate GS models using whole genome sequence (WGS) data and functional annotation.
resultsHere, we used data from 16,508 cows, with phenotypes for five muscular development traits and imputed at the WGS level, in combination with in silico functional annotation and catalogs of putative regulatory variants obtained from experimental data. We evaluated first GS models using the entire WGS data, with or without functional annotation. At this marker density, we were able to run two approaches, assuming either a highly polygenic architecture (GBLUP) or allowing some variants to have larger effects (BayesRR-RC, a Bayesian mixture model), and observed an increased reliability compared to the official GBLUP model at medium marker density (on average 0.016 and 0.018 for GBLUP and BayesRR-RC, respectively). When functional annotation was used, we observed slightly higher reliabilities with an extension of GBLUP that included multiple polygenic terms (one per functional group), while reliabilities decreased with BayesRR-RC. We then used large subsets of variants selected based on functional information or with a linkage disequilibrium (LD) pruning approach, which allowed us to evaluate two additional approaches, BayesCπ and Bayesian Sparse Linear Mixed Model (BSLMM). Reliabilities were higher for these panels than for the WGS data, with the highest accuracies obtained when markers were selected based on functional information. In our setting, BSLMM systematically achieved higher reliabilities than other methods.
conclusionsGS with large panels of functional variants selected from WGS data allowed a significant increase in reliability compared to the official genomic evaluation approach. However, the benefits of using WGS and functional data remained modest, indicating that there is still room for improvement, for example by further refining the functional annotation in the BBC breed.
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.