↓ Skip to main content

Mating structures for genomic selection breeding programs in aquaculture

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics Selection Evolution, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 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
Mating structures for genomic selection breeding programs in aquaculture
Published in
Genetics Selection Evolution, June 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12711-016-0224-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna K. Sonesson, Jørgen Ødegård

Abstract

In traditional family-based aquaculture breeding, each sire is mated to two dams in order to separate the sire's genetic effect from other family effects. Factorial mating involves more mates per sire and/or dam and result in more but smaller full- and/or half-sib families. For traits measured on sibs of selection candidates, factorial mating increases intensity of selection between families when selection is on traditional best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) estimated breeding values (TRAD-EBV). However, selection on genome-wide estimated breeding values (GW-EBV), uses both within- and between-family effects and the advantage of factorial mating is less obvious. Our aim was to compare by computer simulation the impact of various factorial mating strategies for truncation selection on TRAD-EBV versus GW-EBV on rates of inbreeding, accuracy of selection and genetic gain for two traits, i.e. one measured on selection candidates (CAND-TRAIT) and one on their sibs (SIB-TRAIT). Sire:dam mating ratios of 1:1, 2:2 or 10:10 were tested with 100, 200 or 1000 families produced from a constant number of parents (100 sires and 100 dams), and a mating ratio of 1:2 with 200 families produced from 100 sires and 200 dams. With GW-EBV, changing the mating ratio from 1:1 to 10:10 had a limited effect on genetic gain (less than 5 %) for both CAND-TRAIT and SIB-TRAIT, whereas with TRAD-EBV, selection intensity increased for SIB-TRAIT and genetic gain increased by 41 and 77 % for schemes with 3000 and 12,000 selection candidates, respectively. For both GW-EBV and TRAD-EBV, rates of inbreeding decreased by up to ~30 % when the mating ratio was changed from 1:1 to 10:10 for schemes with 3000 to 12,000 selection candidates. Similar results were found for alternative heritabilities of SIB-TRAIT and total number of tested sibs. Changing the sire:dam mating ratio from 1:1 to 10:10 increased genetic gain substantially with TRAD-EBV, mainly through increased selection intensity for the SIB-TRAIT, whereas with GW-EBV, it had a limited effect on genetic gain for both traits. Rates of inbreeding decreased for both selection methods.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 56 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 31%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 14%
Student > Master 7 12%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 10 17%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 30 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 12%
Environmental Science 3 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 12 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 28 June 2016.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Genetics Selection Evolution
#471
of 822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#210,499
of 368,667 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics Selection Evolution
#7
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% 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 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 368,667 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.