↓ Skip to main content

Whole-genome sequence-based genomic prediction in laying chickens with different genomic relationship matrices to account for genetic architecture

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics Selection Evolution, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
50 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Whole-genome sequence-based genomic prediction in laying chickens with different genomic relationship matrices to account for genetic architecture
Published in
Genetics Selection Evolution, January 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12711-016-0277-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Guiyan Ni, David Cavero, Anna Fangmann, Malena Erbe, Henner Simianer

Abstract

With the availability of next-generation sequencing technologies, genomic prediction based on whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data is now feasible in animal breeding schemes and was expected to lead to higher predictive ability, since such data may contain all genomic variants including causal mutations. Our objective was to compare prediction ability with high-density (HD) array data and WGS data in a commercial brown layer line with genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) models using various approaches to weight single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). A total of 892 chickens from a commercial brown layer line were genotyped with 336 K segregating SNPs (array data) that included 157 K genic SNPs (i.e. SNPs in or around a gene). For these individuals, genome-wide sequence information was imputed based on data from re-sequencing runs of 25 individuals, leading to 5.2 million (M) imputed SNPs (WGS data), including 2.6 M genic SNPs. De-regressed proofs (DRP) for eggshell strength, feed intake and laying rate were used as quasi-phenotypic data in genomic prediction analyses. Four weighting factors for building a trait-specific genomic relationship matrix were investigated: identical weights, -(log10 P) from genome-wide association study results, squares of SNP effects from random regression BLUP, and variable selection based weights (known as BLUP|GA). Predictive ability was measured as the correlation between DRP and direct genomic breeding values in five replications of a fivefold cross-validation. Averaged over the three traits, the highest predictive ability (0.366 ± 0.075) was obtained when only genic SNPs from WGS data were used. Predictive abilities with genic SNPs and all SNPs from HD array data were 0.361 ± 0.072 and 0.353 ± 0.074, respectively. Prediction with -(log10 P) or squares of SNP effects as weighting factors for building a genomic relationship matrix or BLUP|GA did not increase accuracy, compared to that with identical weights, regardless of the SNP set used. Our results show that little or no benefit was gained when using all imputed WGS data to perform genomic prediction compared to using HD array data regardless of the weighting factors tested. However, using only genic SNPs from WGS data had a positive effect on prediction ability.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 30%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Master 8 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 9%
Other 3 5%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 11 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 40 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Unspecified 1 2%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 12 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2017.
All research outputs
#17,285,668
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Genetics Selection Evolution
#550
of 822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#268,170
of 422,198 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics Selection Evolution
#9
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 822 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,198 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.