↓ Skip to main content

Genomic breed prediction in New Zealand sheep

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomic Data, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Genomic breed prediction in New Zealand sheep
Published in
BMC Genomic Data, September 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12863-014-0092-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ken G Dodds, Benoît Auvray, Sheryl-Anne N Newman, John C McEwan

Abstract

BackgroundTwo genetic marker-based methods are compared for the use in breed prediction, using a New Zealand sheep resource. The methods were a genomic selection (GS) method, using genomic BLUP, and a regression method (Regp) using the allele frequencies estimated from a subset of purebred animals. Four breed proportions, Romney, Coopworth, Perendale and Texel, were predicted, using Illumina OvineSNP50 genotypes.ResultsBoth methods worked well with correlations of predicted proportions and recorded proportions ranging between 0.91 and 0.97 across methods and prediction breeds, except for the Regp method for Perendales, where the correlation was 0.85. The Regp method gives predictions that appear as a gradient (when viewed as the first few principal components of the genomic relatedness matrix), decreasing away from the breed centre. In contrast the GS method gives predictions dominated by the breeds of the closest relatives in the training set. Some Romneys appear close to the main Perendale group, which is why the Regp method worked less well for predicting Perendale proportion. The GS method works better than the Regp method when the breed groups do not form tight, distinct clusters, but is less robust to breed errors in the training set (for predicting relatives of those animals). Predictions were found to be similar to those obtained using STRUCTURE software, especially those using Regp. The methods appear to overpredict breed proportions in animals that are far removed from the training set. It is suggested that the training set should include animals spanning the range where predictions are made.ConclusionsBreeds can be predicted using either of the two methods investigated. The choice of method will depend on the structure of the breeds in the population. The use of genomic selection methodology for breed prediction appears promising. As applied, it worked well for predicting proportions in animals that were predominantly of the breed types present in the training set, or to put it another way, that were in the range of genetic diversity represented by the training set. Therefore, it would be advisable that the training set covered the breed diversity of where predictions will be made.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 6%
United States 2 6%
Unknown 32 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 28%
Student > Master 5 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Other 3 8%
Unknown 8 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 19 53%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 6%
Environmental Science 1 3%
Unknown 12 33%
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 02 October 2015.
All research outputs
#19,944,091
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomic Data
#786
of 1,204 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,507
of 246,371 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomic Data
#10
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,204 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.3. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 246,371 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.