↓ Skip to main content

Genetic evaluation with major genes and polygenic inheritance when some animals are not genotyped using gene content multiple-trait BLUP

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics Selection Evolution, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
51 Mendeley
Title
Genetic evaluation with major genes and polygenic inheritance when some animals are not genotyped using gene content multiple-trait BLUP
Published in
Genetics Selection Evolution, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12711-015-0165-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Andrés Legarra, Zulma G. Vitezica

Abstract

In pedigreed populations with a major gene segregating for a quantitative trait, it is not clear how to use pedigree, genotype and phenotype information when some individuals are not genotyped. We propose to consider gene content at the major gene as a second trait correlated to the quantitative trait, in a gene content multiple-trait best linear unbiased prediction (GCMTBLUP) method. The genetic covariance between the trait and gene content at the major gene is a function of the substitution effect of the gene. This genetic covariance can be written in a multiple-trait form that accommodates any pattern of missing values for either genotype or phenotype data. Effects of major gene alleles and the genetic covariance between genotype at the major gene and the phenotype can be estimated using standard EM-REML or Gibbs sampling. Prediction of breeding values with genotypes at the major gene can use multiple-trait BLUP software. Major genes with more than two alleles can be considered by including negative covariances between gene contents at each different allele. We simulated two scenarios: a selected and an unselected trait with heritabilities of 0.05 and 0.5, respectively. In both cases, the major gene explained half the genetic variation. Competing methods used imputed gene contents derived by the method of Gengler et al. or by iterative peeling. Imputed gene contents, in contrast to GCMTBLUP, do not consider information on the quantitative trait for genotype prediction. GCMTBLUP gave unbiased estimates of the gene effect, in contrast to the other methods, with less bias and better or equal accuracy of prediction. GCMTBLUP improved estimation of genotypes in non-genotyped individuals, in particular if these individuals had own phenotype records and the trait had a high heritability. Ignoring the major gene in genetic evaluation led to serious biases and decreased prediction accuracy. CGMTBLUP is the best linear predictor of additive genetic merit including pedigree, phenotype, and genotype information at major genes, since it considers missing genotypes. Simulations confirm that it is a simple, efficient and theoretically sound method for genetic evaluation of traits influenced by polygenic inheritance and one or several major genes.

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 51 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
France 1 2%
Unknown 48 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 17 33%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 27%
Other 5 10%
Student > Master 3 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 7 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 32 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 12%
Mathematics 2 4%
Computer Science 1 2%
Immunology and Microbiology 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 8 16%
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 01 July 2016.
All research outputs
#22,756,649
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Genetics Selection Evolution
#773
of 822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#334,835
of 392,657 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics Selection Evolution
#16
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 822 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 392,657 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.