Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41287792›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2025

Genotyping strategies for single-step genomic predictions in a simulated sheep population under different scenarios of pedigree error types.

Artur O Rocha, Leonardo S Gloria, Andre C Araujo, Hui Wen, Carrie S Wilson, Bradley A Freking, Thomas W Murphy, Joan M Burke, Ronald M Lewis, Luiz F Brito

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 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. 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

10 authors.

Artur O RochaDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States.
Leonardo S GloriaThe Pig Improvement Company, Genus PIC, Hendersonville, TN, United States.
Andre C AraujoAcuFast Swine, AcuFast™, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Hui WenDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States.
Carrie S WilsonUSDA, ARS, Range Sheep Production Efficiency Research Unit, Dubois, ID, United States.
Bradley A FrekingUSDA, ARS, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, United States.
Thomas W MurphyUSDA, ARS, Roman L. Hruska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, Clay Center, NE, United States.
Joan M BurkeUSDA, ARS, Dale Bumpers Small Farms Research Center, Booneville, AR, United States.
Ronald M LewisDepartment of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, United States.
Luiz F BritoDepartment of Animal Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic predictions provide more accurate estimated breeding values (EBV) in younger animals. However, sheep reference populations are still small and if the animals included in the reference populations are not chosen carefully, genomic predictions may be biased. In this context, we compared genotyping strategies varying in the proportion of animals genotyped (using a 50K SNP panel) and the extent of pedigree errors (misidentified sires or missing information) on accuracy, bias, and dispersion of genomically-enhanced EBV (GEBV). We simulated a composite sheep population mimicking the formation and flock structure of the Katahdin breed using the AlphaSimR package. Sixteen flocks with an effective population size of 103 were simulated for two traits with heritabilities of 0.35 and 0.10. Breeding values were predicted with Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP) and Single-step Genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP). Scenarios included combinations of 0%-100% males or females genotyped, 0%-20% pedigree errors, and three genotyping strategies (random, highest EBV, or highest phenotypic values). The final population (18,717 animals) was divided into training and validation sets for calculating validation statistics of GEBV. Genomic prediction accuracy significantly improved with random genotyping, outperforming phenotype and EBV-based strategies by up to 19%. Pedigree errors reduced GEBV accuracy while increasing bias and dispersion. Missing pedigree information impacted results more than misidentified sires. Increasing the proportion of animals genotyped improved GEBV prediction metrics, with random genotyping yielding higher accuracies, lower biases, and dispersion closer to 1 (desirable). Prioritizing the genotyping of males up to 10% of the population before incorporating females enhanced the accuracy of GEBV. Genomic information mitigated some pedigree error effects. However, selective genotyping increased GEBV bias and dispersion, and reduced prediction accuracy. Compared to random genotyping, selective genotyping captured less genomic diversity, limiting the effectiveness of the reference population. Similar conclusions were obtained for both trait heritability levels. These findings highlight the importance of genotyping strategies when implementing genomic selection in sheep and the usefulness of genomic information for minimizing the impact of pedigree errors.

Indexed as

composite breedgenomic predictiongenotyping strategyOvinepedigree errorsssGBLUP

Identifiers

PMID41287792
PMCPMC12640758

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.