ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2025
Comparison of genomic prediction accuracies in dairy cattle lactation traits using five classes of functional variants versus generic SNP.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in Poultry RNA-Omics Research: Technologies, RNA Information Layers, and Applications in Complex Traits.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Development and application of a 5K targeted liquid SNP panel for Hetian chickens based on genotyping by targeted sequencing.Poultry science · 2026Article
- From machine learning to digital twin integration for livestock production and research.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenomic selection, typically employing genetic markers from SNP chips, is routine in modern dairy cattle breeding. This study assessed the impact of functional sequence variants on genomic prediction accuracy relative to 50 k SNP chip markers for fat percent, protein percent, milk volume, fat yield, and protein yield in lactating dairy cattle. The functional variants were identified through GWAS, RNA-seq, Histone modification ChIP-seq, ATAC-seq, or were coding variants. The genomic prediction accuracy obtained using each class of functional variants was compared with matched numbers of SNPs randomly selected from the Illumina 50 k SNP chip.
resultsThe investigation revealed that variants identified by GWAS or RNA-seq, significantly improved the prediction accuracy across all five traits. Contributions from ChIP-seq, ATAC-seq, and coding variants varied. Some variants identified using ChIP-seq showed marked improvements, while others reduced accuracy in protein yield predictions. Relative to a matched number of 32,595 SNPs from the SNP chip, pooling all the functional variants demonstrated prediction accuracy increases of 1.76% for fat percent, 2.97% for protein percent, 0.51% for milk volume, and 0.26% for fat yield, but with a slight decrease of 0.43% in protein yield.
conclusionThe study demonstrates that functional variants can improve prediction accuracy relative to equivalent numbers of variants from a generic SNP panel, with percent traits showing more significant gains than yield traits. The main advantage of using functional variants for genomic prediction was achievement of comparable accuracy using a smaller, more selective set of loci. This is particularly evident in trait-specific scenarios. Our findings indicate that specific combinations of functional variants comprising 16 k variants can achieve genomic prediction accuracy comparable to employing a standard panel of twice the size (32.6 k), especially for percent traits. This highlights the potential for the development of more efficient, trait-focused SNP panels utilizing functional variants.
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.