Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38612337›Full record

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.

Chang Yin, Haoran Shi, Peng Zhou, Yuwei Wang, Xuzhe Tao, Zongjun Yin, Xiaodong Zhang, Yang Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

8 authors.

Chang YinDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.
Haoran ShiDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.
Peng ZhouDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0009-0000-5536-1506
Yuwei WangDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.ORCID 0009-0009-9757-0539
Xuzhe TaoDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.
Zongjun YinCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China.
Xiaodong ZhangCollege of Animal Science and Technology, Anhui Agricultural University, Hefei 230036, China.
Yang LiuDepartment of Animal Genetics and Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing 210095, China.

Funding

the Joint Research Project of Excellent Livestock Breeds in Anhui Province 340000211260001000431the Project of the Open Competition Mechanism to Select the Best for Revitalizing Seed Industry in Jiangsu Province JBGS(2021)026
6 · The paper itself

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

best single-step genomic linear unbiased predictiongenomic selectiongrowth traitsmulti-population

Identifiers

PMID38612337
PMCPMC11010886

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.