↓ Skip to main content

Utility of whole-genome sequence data for across-breed genomic prediction

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics Selection Evolution, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#32 of 821)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
70 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
65 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
Utility of whole-genome sequence data for across-breed genomic prediction
Published in
Genetics Selection Evolution, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12711-018-0396-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Biaty Raymond, Aniek C. Bouwman, Chris Schrooten, Jeanine Houwing-Duistermaat, Roel F. Veerkamp

Abstract

Genomic prediction (GP) across breeds has so far resulted in low accuracies of the predicted genomic breeding values. Our objective was to evaluate whether using whole-genome sequence (WGS) instead of low-density markers can improve GP across breeds, especially when markers are pre-selected from a genome-wide association study (GWAS), and to test our hypothesis that many non-causal markers in WGS data have a diluting effect on accuracy of across-breed prediction. Estimated breeding values for stature and bovine high-density (HD) genotypes were available for 595 Jersey bulls from New Zealand, 957 Holstein bulls from New Zealand and 5553 Holstein bulls from the Netherlands. BovineHD genotypes for all bulls were imputed to WGS using Beagle4 and Minimac2. Genomic prediction across the three populations was performed with ASReml4, with each population used as single reference and as single validation sets. In addition to the 50k, HD and WGS, markers that were significantly associated with stature in a large meta-GWAS analysis were selected and used for prediction, resulting in 10 prediction scenarios. Furthermore, we estimated the proportion of genetic variance captured by markers in each scenario. Across breeds, 50k, HD and WGS markers resulted in very low accuracies of prediction ranging from - 0.04 to 0.13. Accuracies were higher in scenarios with pre-selected markers from a meta-GWAS. For example, using only the 133 most significant markers in 133 QTL regions from the meta-GWAS yielded accuracies ranging from 0.08 to 0.23, while 23,125 markers with a - log10(p) higher than 7 resulted in accuracies of up 0.35. Using WGS data did not significantly improve the proportion of genetic variance captured across breeds compared to scenarios with few but pre-selected markers. Our results demonstrated that the accuracy of across-breed GP can be improved by using markers that are pre-selected from WGS based on their potential causal effect. We also showed that simply increasing the number of markers up to the WGS level does not increase the accuracy of across-breed prediction, even when markers that are expected to have a causal effect are included.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 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 65 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 65 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 32%
Researcher 8 12%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 17 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 34 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 8%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 5%
Engineering 2 3%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 17 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#2,467,295
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Genetics Selection Evolution
#32
of 821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,872
of 343,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics Selection Evolution
#6
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% 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 96% 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 343,554 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 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.