Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40594941›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Variable selection strategies for genomic prediction of growth and carcass related traits in experimental Nellore cattle herds under different selection criteria.

Lucio F M Mota, Leonardo M Arikawa, Júlia P S Valente, Larissa F S Fonseca, Maria E Z Mercadante, Joslaine N S G Cyrillo, Henrique N Oliveira, Lucia G Albuquerque

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Multi-variant GWAS and genomic prediction dissect the genetic architecture underlying tomato fruit weight.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

8 authors.

Lucio F M MotaDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, 14884-900, SP, Brazil. flaviommota.zoo@gmail.com.
Leonardo M ArikawaDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, 14884-900, SP, Brazil.
Júlia P S ValenteDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, 14884-900, SP, Brazil.
Larissa F S FonsecaDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, 14884-900, SP, Brazil.
Maria E Z MercadanteInstitute of Animal Science, Beef Cattle Research Center, Sertãozinho, SP, 14174-000, Brazil.
Joslaine N S G CyrilloInstitute of Animal Science, Beef Cattle Research Center, Sertãozinho, SP, 14174-000, Brazil.
Henrique N OliveiraDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, 14884-900, SP, Brazil.
Lucia G AlbuquerqueDepartment of Animal Science, School of Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, São Paulo State University (UNESP), Jaboticabal, 14884-900, SP, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) has become a widely used tool in breeding programs, enhancing selection accuracy and leading to faster genetic progress. However, in small populations, GS faces challenges due to limited data and a large number of markers potentially leading to biased predictions. Implementing feature selection strategies is essential to improve prediction accuracy and avoid overfitting. Hence, we compared the predictive ability of genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), Bayesian B (BayesB), and elastic net (ENet) models, using all markers and feature selection via GWAS and fixation index (FST) to reduce marker numbers, for growth and ultrasound carcass traits in three Nellore cattle populations differentially selected for yearling body weight (YBW). The populations evaluated included: Nellore Control (NeC), selected for YBW; Nellore Selection (NeS), selected for maximum YBW; and Nellore Traditional (NeT), selected for maximum YBW and lower residual feed intake (RFI) since 2013. Comparing the statistical approaches using GBLUP as the reference, ENet improved prediction accuracy by 10% for growth traits and 12% for carcass traits, while BayesB showed no improvement for growth traits but achieved a 3% gain for carcass traits. When comparing models using all markers to those with variable selection, both GWAS and FST improved prediction accuracy across models, with FST outperforming GWAS in stratified populations. A stricter GWAS threshold (> 1.0% explained variance), compared to a less conservative criterion (> 0.5%), reduced BayesB prediction accuracy (6.8%), while slightly increasing accuracy for GBLUP (1.3%) and ENet (2.4%). Similarly, a more restrictive FST threshold (> 0.2) against a less conservative (> 0.1) resulted in smaller gains for GBLUP (4%) and ENet (5%), but reduced BayesB accuracy (- 4%). Overall, selecting markers through GWAS and FST improves prediction accuracy for both growth and carcass traits, particularly in stratified populations. However, stricter thresholds can negatively impact accuracy, highlighting the need for optimized marker selection strategies.

Indexed as

BreedingGenomicsQuantitative Trait, HeritableSelection, GeneticAnimalsBayes TheoremBody WeightCattleGenome-Wide Association StudyModels, GeneticPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait LociFixation indexGenome-wide associationGenomic predictionSmall populationSNP selection method

Identifiers

PMID40594941
PMCPMC12218294

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.