↓ Skip to main content

Comparing strategies for selection of low-density SNPs for imputation-mediated genomic prediction in U. S. Holsteins

Overview of attention for article published in Genetica, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
20 Mendeley
Title
Comparing strategies for selection of low-density SNPs for imputation-mediated genomic prediction in U. S. Holsteins
Published in
Genetica, December 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10709-017-0004-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jun He, Jiaqi Xu, Xiao-Lin Wu, Stewart Bauck, Jungjae Lee, Gota Morota, Stephen D. Kachman, Matthew L. Spangler

Abstract

SNP chips are commonly used for genotyping animals in genomic selection but strategies for selecting low-density (LD) SNPs for imputation-mediated genomic selection have not been addressed adequately. The main purpose of the present study was to compare the performance of eight LD (6K) SNP panels, each selected by a different strategy exploiting a combination of three major factors: evenly-spaced SNPs, increased minor allele frequencies, and SNP-trait associations either for single traits independently or for all the three traits jointly. The imputation accuracies from 6K to 80K SNP genotypes were between 96.2 and 98.2%. Genomic prediction accuracies obtained using imputed 80K genotypes were between 0.817 and 0.821 for daughter pregnancy rate, between 0.838 and 0.844 for fat yield, and between 0.850 and 0.863 for milk yield. The two SNP panels optimized on the three major factors had the highest genomic prediction accuracy (0.821-0.863), and these accuracies were very close to those obtained using observed 80K genotypes (0.825-0.868). Further exploration of the underlying relationships showed that genomic prediction accuracies did not respond linearly to imputation accuracies, but were significantly affected by genotype (imputation) errors of SNPs in association with the traits to be predicted. SNPs optimal for map coverage and MAF were favorable for obtaining accurate imputation of genotypes whereas trait-associated SNPs improved genomic prediction accuracies. Thus, optimal LD SNP panels were the ones that combined both strengths. The present results have practical implications on the design of LD SNP chips for imputation-enabled genomic prediction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 20 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 35%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 20%
Other 3 15%
Lecturer 2 10%
Student > Bachelor 1 5%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 2 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 50%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 25%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 5%
Unknown 4 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 December 2017.
All research outputs
#14,369,953
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from Genetica
#434
of 717 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#237,550
of 439,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetica
#2
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 717 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,309 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.