Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38429665›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2024

GWABLUP: genome-wide association assisted best linear unbiased prediction of genetic values.

Theo Meuwissen, Leiv Sigbjorn Eikje, Arne B Gjuvsland

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
11.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Candidate genes for kernel ratio in maize identified via combined GWAS and QTL mapping across multiple environments.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Transforming beef quality through healthy breeding: a strategy to reduce carcinogenic compounds and enhance human health: a review.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Practical Considerations When Using Mendelian Sampling Variances for Selection Decisions in Genomic Selection Programs.Journal of animal breeding and genetics = Zeitschrift fur Tierzuchtung und Zuchtungsbiologie · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Theo MeuwissenFaculty of Life Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, 1432, Ås, Norway. theo.meuwissen@nmbu.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3019-4283
Leiv Sigbjorn EikjeGENO SA, Storhamargata 44, 2317, Hamar, Norway.
Arne B GjuvslandGENO SA, Storhamargata 44, 2317, Hamar, Norway.
Geno (Norway) · NONorwegian University of Life Sciences · NO

Funding

Norges Miljø- og Biovitenskapelige Universitet 309611
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSince the very beginning of genomic selection, researchers investigated methods that improved upon SNP-BLUP (single nucleotide polymorphism best linear unbiased prediction). SNP-BLUP gives equal weight to all SNPs, whereas it is expected that many SNPs are not near causal variants and thus do not have substantial effects. A recent approach to remedy this is to use genome-wide association study (GWAS) findings and increase the weights of GWAS-top-SNPs in genomic predictions. Here, we employ a genome-wide approach to integrate GWAS results into genomic prediction, called GWABLUP.

resultsGWABLUP consists of the following steps: (1) performing a GWAS in the training data which results in likelihood ratios; (2) smoothing the likelihood ratios over the SNPs; (3) combining the smoothed likelihood ratio with the prior probability of SNPs having non-zero effects, which yields the posterior probability of the SNPs; (4) calculating a weighted genomic relationship matrix using the posterior probabilities as weights; and (5) performing genomic prediction using the weighted genomic relationship matrix. Using high-density genotypes and milk, fat, protein and somatic cell count phenotypes on dairy cows, GWABLUP was compared to GBLUP, GBLUP (topSNPs) with extra weights for GWAS top-SNPs, and BayesGC, i.e. a Bayesian variable selection model. The GWAS resulted in six, five, four, and three genome-wide significant peaks for milk, fat and protein yield and somatic cell count, respectively. GWABLUP genomic predictions were 10, 6, 7 and 1% more reliable than those of GBLUP for milk, fat and protein yield and somatic cell count, respectively. It was also more reliable than GBLUP (topSNPs) for all four traits, and more reliable than BayesGC for three of the traits. Although GWABLUP showed a tendency towards inflation bias for three of the traits, this was not statistically significant. In a multitrait analysis, GWABLUP yielded the highest accuracy for two of the traits. However, for SCC, which was relatively unrelated to the yield traits, including yield trait GWAS-results reduced the reliability compared to a single trait analysis.

conclusionsGWABLUP uses GWAS results to differentially weigh all the SNPs in a weighted GBLUP genomic prediction analysis. GWABLUP yielded up to 10% and 13% more reliable genomic predictions than GBLUP for single and multitrait analyses, respectively. Extension of GWABLUP to single-step analyses is straightforward.

Indexed as

GenomeGenome-Wide Association StudyAnimalsBayes TheoremCattleFemaleGenotypeModels, GeneticPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID38429665
PMCPMC11234632
OpenAlexW4392365841

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.