ArticleBiology direct2024
Integrating multi-layered biological priors to improve genomic prediction accuracy in beef cattle.
Article in Biology direct, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- PGS-GS: a framework integrating polygenic scores and genomic selection in animal breeding.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Conditionally Significant eQTL and TWAS Analyses Identify MsRD26 as a Major Candidate Positive Regulator of Salt Tolerance in Medicago sativa L.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence and multi-omics integration in liquid biopsy for genitourinary cancers: a systematic scoping review.International urology and nephrology · 2026Article
- Smooth Muscle Disruptive Feature Defines Molecular Subtyping, Risk Stratification, and Metastatic Potential in Prostate Cancer.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIntegrating multi-layered information can enhance the accuracy of genomic prediction for complex traits. However, the improvement and application of effective strategies for genomic prediction (GP) using multi-omics data remains challenging.
methodsWe generated 11 feature sets for sequencing variants from genomics, transcriptomics, metabolomics, and epigenetics data in beef cattle, then we assessed the contribution of functional variants using genomic restricted maximum likelihood (GREML). We next estimated and ranked variant scores for 43 economically important traits, and compared the prediction accuracy of the top and bottom sets using genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and BayesB model. In addition, we annotated the variants from GWAS with functional feature sets and performed enrichment analysis.
resultsWe observed significant enrichments for 32 functional categories in 11 feature sets. The evolutionary related sets (conservation regions and selection signatures) contributed significantly to heritability (31.78-fold and 14.48-fold enrichment), while metabolomics and transcriptomics showed low heritability enrichments. We observed a significant increase in prediction accuracy using the top feature set variants compared to whole-genome sequencing (WGS) data. The prediction accuracy based on the top 10% variant set showed an average increase of 11.6% and 7.54% using BayesB and GBLUP across traits, respectively. Notably, the greatest increase of 31.52% was obtained for spleen weight (SW) using BayesB. Also, we found that the top 10% of variants show strong enrichment with weight related QTLs based on the Cattle QTL database.
conclusionsOur findings suggest that integrating biological prior information from multiple layers can enhance our understanding of the genetic architecture underlying complex traits and further improve genomic prediction in beef cattle.
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.