↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of genomic predictions for feed efficiency traits of beef cattle using 50K and imputed HD genotypes

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Animal Science, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accuracy of genomic predictions for feed efficiency traits of beef cattle using 50K and imputed HD genotypes
Published in
Journal of Animal Science, April 2016
DOI 10.2527/jas.2015-0126
Pubmed ID
Authors

D. Lu, E. C. Akanno, J. J. Crowley, F. Schenkel, H. Li, M. De Pauw, S. S. Moore, Z. Wang, C. Li, P. Stothard, G. Plastow, S. P. Miller, J. A. Basarab

Abstract

The accuracy of genomic predictions can be used to assess the utility of dense marker genotypes for genetic improvement of beef efficiency traits. This study was designed to test the impact of genomic distance between training and validation populations, training population size, statistical methods, and density of genetic markers on prediction accuracy for feed efficiency traits in multibreed and crossbred beef cattle. A total of 6,794 beef cattle data collated from various projects and research herds across Canada were used. Illumina BovineSNP50 (50K) and imputed Axiom Genome-Wide BOS 1 Array (HD) genotypes were available for all animals. The traits studied were DMI, ADG, and residual feed intake (RFI). Four validation groups of 150 animals each, including Angus (AN), Charolais (CH), Angus-Hereford crosses (ANHH), and a Charolais-based composite (TX) were created by considering the genomic distance between pairs of individuals in the validation groups. Each validation group had 7 corresponding training groups of increasing sizes ( = 1,000, 1,999, 2,999, 3,999, 4,999, 5,998, and 6,644), which also represent increasing average genomic distance between pairs of individuals in the training and validations groups. Prediction of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) was performed using genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and Bayesian method C (BayesC). The accuracy of genomic predictions was defined as the Pearson's correlation between adjusted phenotype and GEBV (), unless otherwise stated. Using 50K genotypes, the highest average achieved in purebreds (AN, CH) was 0.41 for DMI, 0.34 for ADG, and 0.35 for RFI, whereas in crossbreds (ANHH, TX) it was 0.38 for DMI, 0.21 for ADG, and 0.25 for RFI. Similarly, when imputed HD genotypes were applied in purebreds (AN, CH), the highest average was 0.14 for DMI, 0.15 for ADG, and 0.14 for RFI, whereas in crossbreds (ANHH, TX) it was 0.38 for DMI, 0.22 for ADG, and 0.24 for RFI. The of GBLUP predictions were greatly reduced with increasing genomic average distance compared to those from BayesC predictions. The results indicate that 50K genotypes, used with BayesC, are more effective for predicting GEBV in purebred cattle. Imputed HD genotypes found utility when dealing with composites and crossbreds. Formulation of a fairly large training set for genomic predictions in beef cattle should consider the genomic distance between the training and target populations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 60 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Student > Master 12 19%
Researcher 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 5%
Other 12 19%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 52%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Computer Science 2 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 3 5%
Unknown 14 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 03 May 2016.
All research outputs
#18,455,405
of 22,867,327 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Animal Science
#4,052
of 5,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,790
of 300,274 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Animal Science
#18
of 43 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,867,327 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,099 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 300,274 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 43 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.