ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2024
Genomic Prediction of Growth Traits in Yorkshire Pigs of Different Reference Group Sizes Using Different Estimated Breeding Value Models.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Haplotype applications in genomic selection.Genome biology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The need for sufficient reference population data poses a significant challenge in breeding programs aimed at improving pig farming on a small to medium scale. To overcome this hurdle, investigating the advantages of combing reference populations of varying sizes is crucial for enhancing the accuracy of the genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV). Genomic selection (GS) in populations with limited reference data can be optimized by combining populations of the same breed or related breeds. This study focused on understanding the effect of combing different reference group sizes on the accuracy of GS for determining the growth effectiveness and percentage of lean meat in Yorkshire pigs. Specifically, our study investigated two important traits: the age at 100 kg live weight (AGE100) and the backfat thickness at 100 kg live weight (BF100). This research assessed the efficiency of genomic prediction (GP) using different GEBV models across three Yorkshire populations with varying genetic backgrounds. The GeneSeek 50K GGP porcine high-density array was used for genotyping. A total of 2295 Yorkshire pigs were included, representing three Yorkshire pig populations with different genetic backgrounds-295 from Danish (small) lines from Huaibei City, Anhui Province, 500 from Canadian (medium) lines from Lixin County, Anhui Province, and 1500 from American (large) lines from Shanghai. To evaluate the impact of different population combination scenarios on the GS accuracy, three approaches were explored: (1) combining all three populations for prediction, (2) combining two populations to predict the third, and (3) predicting each population independently. Five GEBV models, including three Bayesian models (BayesA, BayesB, and BayesC), the genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) model, and single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) were implemented through 20 repetitions of five-fold cross-validation (CV). The results indicate that predicting one target population using the other two populations yielded the highest accuracy, providing a novel approach for improving the genomic selection accuracy in Yorkshire pigs. In this study, it was found that using different populations of the same breed to predict small- and medium-sized herds might be effective in improving the GEBV. This investigation highlights the significance of incorporating population combinations in genetic models for predicting the breeding value, particularly for pig farmers confronted with resource limitations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.