ArticleBMC genomics2026
Genomic selection accuracy and bias using imputed genotypes on growth, welfare and fitness traits in two Pekin duck lines.
Article in BMC genomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe study explored the accuracy and biases of genomic selection in two commercial Pekin duck lines, focusing on their performance under real-world breeding practices. A dataset of 26 K duck records with phenotype and imputed genotype information (60 K chip) was analysed for growth, welfare, and primary feather length traits. Mixed linear models with relationship matrices from pedigree (BLUP) or markers (GBLUP) were used to estimate variance components and breeding values. We then assessed selection accuracies and biases to determine the most appropriate models.
resultsResults showed high imputation accuracies of 0.93 for line A and 0.92 for line D. Heritability estimates from pedigree were generally higher than those from genomic markers. For example, juvenile weight (JW) heritability ranged from 0.22 in line A and 0.25 in line D using markers, to 0.39 and 0.50, respectively, using the pedigree. Slaughter body weight (BW) had similar trends. Gait heritability was low (0.07) using markers in both lines, while breast muscle depth (BD) also had lower estimates (0.15–0.16). For line A, genomic prediction accuracies were higher with the G-matrix, especially for BW (r2=0.68-0.70) and JW with r2 of 0.49. Estimates for gait and foot pad dermatitis (FPD) improved using the G-matrix at 0.58 vs. 0.24 and 0.68 vs. 0.44, respectively, compared to pedigree information. Similar improvements were found for line D, with BD estimates improving from 0.50 to 0.71 using the G-matrix. Line A showed minimal bias (0.01-0.19) with the G-matrix compared to 0.02-0.41 with the A-matrix; the highest bias was for JW. Line D had lower biases with the G-matrix (0.02-0.17) than in line A with markers, while higher biases were observed using pedigree (0.01-0.37).
conclusionsThese findings indicate that all traits were heritable with higher prediction accuracies and lower biases using GBLUP compared to BLUP. This study demonstrates the effectiveness of GBLUP in improving prediction accuracy and reducing bias in selection traits of Pekin ducks, particularly for traits with low heritability.
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.