↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of prediction of genomic breeding values for residual feed intake and carcass and meat quality traits in Bos taurus, Bos indicus, and composite beef cattle1

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Animal Science, July 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
80 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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 prediction of genomic breeding values for residual feed intake and carcass and meat quality traits in Bos taurus, Bos indicus, and composite beef cattle1
Published in
Journal of Animal Science, July 2013
DOI 10.2527/jas.2012-5827
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. Bolormaa, J. E. Pryce, K. Kemper, K. Savin, B. J. Hayes, W. Barendse, Y. Zhang, C. M. Reich, B. A. Mason, R. J. Bunch, B. E. Harrison, A. Reverter, R. M. Herd, B. Tier, H.-U. Graser, M. E. Goddard

Abstract

The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of genomic predictions for 19 traits including feed efficiency, growth, and carcass and meat quality traits in beef cattle. The 10,181 cattle in our study had real or imputed genotypes for 729,068 SNP although not all cattle were measured for all traits. Animals included Bos taurus, Brahman, composite, and crossbred animals. Genomic EBV (GEBV) were calculated using 2 methods of genomic prediction [BayesR and genomic BLUP (GBLUP)] either using a common training dataset for all breeds or using a training dataset comprising only animals of the same breed. Accuracies of GEBV were assessed using 5-fold cross-validation. The accuracy of genomic prediction varied by trait and by method. Traits with a large number of recorded and genotyped animals and with high heritability gave the greatest accuracy of GEBV. Using GBLUP, the average accuracy was 0.27 across traits and breeds, but the accuracies between breeds and between traits varied widely. When the training population was restricted to animals from the same breed as the validation population, GBLUP accuracies declined by an average of 0.04. The greatest decline in accuracy was found for the 4 composite breeds. The BayesR accuracies were greater by an average of 0.03 than GBLUP accuracies, particularly for traits with known genes of moderate to large effect mutations segregating. The accuracies of 0.43 to 0.48 for IGF-I traits were among the greatest in the study. Although accuracies are low compared with those observed in dairy cattle, genomic selection would still be beneficial for traits that are hard to improve by conventional selection, such as tenderness and residual feed intake. BayesR identified many of the same quantitative trait loci as a genomewide association study but appeared to map them more precisely. All traits appear to be highly polygenic with thousands of SNP independently associated with each trait.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Uganda 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Colombia 1 1%
Unknown 65 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 30%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 14%
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 9 13%
Unspecified 6 9%
Other 14 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 51 74%
Unspecified 8 12%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 3 4%

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 09 May 2013.
All research outputs
#1,637,594
of 3,624,912 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Animal Science
#190
of 627 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#32,312
of 84,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Animal Science
#2
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 3,624,912 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 53rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 627 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its peers.
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 84,682 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.