Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40826369›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2025

Incorporating information of causal variants in genomic prediction using GBLUP or machine learning models in a simulated livestock population.

Jifan Yang, Mario P L Calus, Yvonne C J Wientjes, Theo H E Meuwissen, Pascal Duenk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

5 authors.

Jifan YangAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6700 AH, The Netherlands. jifan.yang@wur.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4025-2236
Mario P L CalusAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6700 AH, The Netherlands.
Yvonne C J WientjesAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6700 AH, The Netherlands.
Theo H E MeuwissenFaculty of Life Sciences, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Ås, 1432, Norway.
Pascal DuenkAnimal Breeding and Genomics, Wageningen University & Research, Wageningen, 6700 AH, The Netherlands.

Funding

China Scholarship Council 202007720040
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic prediction has revolutionized animal breeding, with GBLUP being the most widely used prediction model. In theory, the accuracy of genomic prediction could be improved by incorporating information from QTL. This strategy could be especially beneficial for machine learning models that are able to distinguish informative from uninformative features. The objective of this study was to assess the benefit of incorporating QTL genotypes in GBLUP and machine learning models. This study simulated a selected livestock population where QTL and their effects were known. We used four genomic prediction models, GBLUP, (weighted) 2GBLUP, random forest (RF), and support vector regression (SVR) to predict breeding values of young animals, and considered different scenarios that varied in the proportion of genetic variance explained by the included QTL.

results2GBLUP resulted in the highest accuracy. Its accuracy increased when the included QTL explained up to 80% of the genetic variance, after which the accuracy dropped. With a weighted 2GBLUP model, the accuracy always increased when more QTL were included. Prediction accuracy of GBLUP was consistently higher than SVR, and the accuracy for both models slightly increased with more QTL information included. The RF model resulted in the lowest prediction accuracy, and did not improve by including QTL information.

conclusionsOur results show that incorporating QTL information in GBLUP and SVR can improve prediction accuracy, but the extent of improvement varies across models. RF had a much lower prediction accuracy than the other models and did not show improvements when QTL information was added. Two possible reasons for this result are that the data structure in our data does not allow RF to fully realize its potential and that RF is not designed well for this particular prediction problem. Our study highlighted the importance of selecting appropriate models for genomic prediction and underscored the potential limitations of machine learning models when applied to genomic prediction in livestock.

Indexed as

GBLUPGenomic predictionMachine learningQTLRandom forestSupport vector regression

Identifiers

PMID40826369
PMCPMC12362903

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.