Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32267923›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science2020

Current status of genomic evaluation.

Ignacy Misztal, Daniela Lourenco, Andres Legarra

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

77 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Impact of Model Parameterisation and Variance Component Estimates on Genomic Predictions of Carcass Traits in Montana Composite Cattle.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Towards a sweetpotato genomic-enabled breeding: optimizing two-stage analysis of multi-environment augmented trials.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Efficiency of Recurrent Genomic Selection in Panmictic Populations.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ignacy MisztalDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Daniela LourencoDepartment of Animal and Dairy Science, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Andres LegarraDepartment of Animal Genetics, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Castanet-Tolosan, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Early application of genomic selection relied on SNP estimation with phenotypes or de-regressed proofs (DRP). Chips of 50k SNP seemed sufficient for an accurate estimation of SNP effects. Genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) were composed of an index with parent average, direct genomic value, and deduction of a parental index to eliminate double counting. Use of SNP selection or weighting increased accuracy with small data sets but had minimal to no impact with large data sets. Efforts to include potentially causative SNP derived from sequence data or high-density chips showed limited or no gain in accuracy. After the implementation of genomic selection, EBV by BLUP became biased because of genomic preselection and DRP computed based on EBV required adjustments, and the creation of DRP for females is hard and subject to double counting. Genomic selection was greatly simplified by single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP). This method based on combining genomic and pedigree relationships automatically creates an index with all sources of information, can use any combination of male and female genotypes, and accounts for preselection. To avoid biases, especially under strong selection, ssGBLUP requires that pedigree and genomic relationships are compatible. Because the inversion of the genomic relationship matrix (G) becomes costly with more than 100k genotyped animals, large data computations in ssGBLUP were solved by exploiting limited dimensionality of genomic data due to limited effective population size. With such dimensionality ranging from 4k in chickens to about 15k in cattle, the inverse of G can be created directly (e.g., by the algorithm for proven and young) at a linear cost. Due to its simplicity and accuracy, ssGBLUP is routinely used for genomic selection by the major chicken, pig, and beef industries. Single step can be used to derive SNP effects for indirect prediction and for genome-wide association studies, including computations of the P-values. Alternative single-step formulations exist that use SNP effects for genotyped or for all animals. Although genomics is the new standard in breeding and genetics, there are still some problems that need to be solved. This involves new validation procedures that are unaffected by selection, parameter estimation that accounts for all the genomic data used in selection, and strategies to address reduction in genetic variances after genomic selection was implemented.

Indexed as

GenomicsModels, GeneticAnimalsBreedingCattleChickensFemaleGenome-Wide Association StudyGenotypeMalePedigreePhenotypePopulation DensitySwinegenomic evaluationgenomic selectionlarge datasingle-step GBLUP

Identifiers

PMID32267923
PMCPMC7183352

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.