↓ Skip to main content

Estimated allele substitution effects underlying genomic evaluation models depend on the scaling of allele counts

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

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 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
Estimated allele substitution effects underlying genomic evaluation models depend on the scaling of allele counts
Published in
Genetics Selection Evolution, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12711-017-0355-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Aniek C. Bouwman, Ben J. Hayes, Mario P. L. Calus

Abstract

Genomic evaluation is used to predict direct genomic values (DGV) for selection candidates in breeding programs, but also to estimate allele substitution effects (ASE) of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Scaling of allele counts influences the estimated ASE, because scaling of allele counts results in less shrinkage towards the mean for low minor allele frequency (MAF) variants. Scaling may become relevant for estimating ASE as more low MAF variants will be used in genomic evaluations. We show the impact of scaling on estimates of ASE using real data and a theoretical framework, and in terms of power, model fit and predictive performance. In a dairy cattle dataset with 630 K SNP genotypes, the correlation between DGV for stature from a random regression model using centered allele counts (RRc) and centered and scaled allele counts (RRcs) was 0.9988, whereas the overall correlation between ASE using RRc and RRcs was 0.27. The main difference in ASE between both methods was found for SNPs with a MAF lower than 0.01. Both the ratio (ASE from RRcs/ASE from RRc) and the regression coefficient (regression of ASE from RRcs on ASE from RRc) were much higher than 1 for low MAF SNPs. Derived equations showed that scenarios with a high heritability, a large number of individuals and a small number of variants have lower ratios between ASE from RRc and RRcs. We also investigated the optimal scaling parameter [from - 1 (RRcs) to 0 (RRc) in steps of 0.1] in the bovine stature dataset. We found that the log-likelihood was maximized with a scaling parameter of - 0.8, while the mean squared error of prediction was minimized with a scaling parameter of - 1, i.e., RRcs. Large differences in estimated ASE were observed for low MAF SNPs when allele counts were scaled or not scaled because there is less shrinkage towards the mean for scaled allele counts. We derived a theoretical framework that shows that the difference in ASE due to shrinkage is heavily influenced by the power of the data. Increasing the power results in smaller differences in ASE whether allele counts are scaled or not.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 16%
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 6 19%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 16%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 7 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 06 August 2022.
All research outputs
#3,223,551
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genetics Selection Evolution
#61
of 821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,863
of 339,743 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics Selection Evolution
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 821 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
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 339,743 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.