Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40218362›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

A Comparative Study of Optimizing Genomic Prediction Accuracy in Commercial Pigs.

Xiaojian Chen, Yiyi Liu, Yuling Zhang, Zhanwei Zhuang, Jinyan Huang, Menghao Luan, Xiang Zhao, Linsong Dong, Jian Ye, Ming Yang and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

15 authors.

Xiaojian ChenNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Yiyi LiuNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.ORCID 0009-0008-6921-1224
Yuling ZhangNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Zhanwei ZhuangNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Jinyan HuangNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Menghao LuanNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Xiang ZhaoNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Linsong DongGuangdong Zhongxin Breeding Technology Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 510642, China.
Jian YeGuangdong Zhongxin Breeding Technology Co., Ltd., Guangzhou 510642, China.
Ming YangCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Zhongkai University of Agriculture and Engineering, Guangzhou 510225, China.
Enqin ZhengNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Gengyuan CaiNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Jie YangNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7031-2160
Zhenfang WuNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.
Langqing LiuNational Engineering Research Center for Breeding Swine Industry, College of Animal Science, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou 510642, China.

Funding

Local Innovative and Research Teams Project of Guangdong Province 2019BT02N630South China Agricultural University discipline construction and development project 2023B10564001Technical Innovation of Crossbred in Swine and Breed High Fertility Lines Project 2022B0202090002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic prediction (GP), which uses genome-wide markers to estimate breeding values, is a crucial tool for accelerating genetic progress in livestock and plant breeding. The accuracy of GP depends on several factors, including the statistical model, marker density, and cross-validation strategy. This study evaluated these factors to optimize GP accuracy for eight economically important carcass and body traits in a Duroc × (Landrace × Yorkshire) (DLY) pig population. This study used 50 K SNP chip data from 1494 DLY pigs, which were imputed to the whole genome sequence (WGS) level. Seven different models were compared, including GBLUP, ssGBLUP, and five Bayesian models. The ssGBLUP model consistently outperformed other models across all traits, with prediction accuracies ranging from 0.371 to 0.502. Further analyses showed that prediction accuracy improved with increasing cross-validation folds and marker density, particularly in the low-density panel. However, the improvement plateaued in medium-to-high-density scenarios. These findings underscore the importance of carefully selecting the model, marker density, and cross-validation strategy to optimize GP accuracy for carcass and body traits in commercial pigs. The insights from this study can guide breeders and researchers in maximizing genetic progress in pig breeding programs.

Indexed as

carcass and body traitscross-validationgenomic prediction accuracymarker densityssGBLUP

Identifiers

PMID40218362
PMCPMC11988176

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.