ArticleAnimal bioscience2025
Evaluating effect of different dominance genotype encodings on genome-wide association studies and genomic selection.
Article in Animal bioscience, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe quantification of dominance effects varies across different models, and the appropriate coding in genetic analyses remains debated. This study investigated several proposed dominance encoding methods, evaluating their performance in genetic analyses.
methodsThree datasets, each representing the breeds Duroc, Landrace, and Yorkshire, were used in this study. We assessed heritability, genetic effects, and prediction accuracy in genomic selection (GS), as well as significant loci and statistical power in genome-wide association studies (GWAS).
resultsIn GS, correlations among additive effects and among total genetic effects across models were high (0.9 to 1) under different dominance encodings for most traits, while only the (0, 1, 0) and (0, 2p, 4p-2) encodings maintained high correlations for all traits. The average prediction accuracy of the additive-dominance model with the (0, 1, 0) encoding increased by 2.79% and 1.69%, respectively, compared to the (0, 1, 1) and (0, 2p, 4p-2) encodings for all traits. In GWAS, the (0, 1, 0) encoding had higher statistical power compared to the (0, 1, 1) and (0, 2p, 4p-2) encodings, especially for rare variants. Additionally, different dominance encodings identified independent and distinct significant loci.
conclusionThe (0, 1, 0) encoding method generally outperforms the others in genetic analyses, while alternative encodings provide complementary insights into dominance effects. These findings provide valuable guidance for selecting dominance encodings in genetic analyses.
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.