↓ Skip to main content

Artificial selection with traditional or genomic relationships: consequences in coancestry and genetic diversity

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Readers on

mendeley
49 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
Artificial selection with traditional or genomic relationships: consequences in coancestry and genetic diversity
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2015.00127
Pubmed ID
Authors

Silvia Teresa Rodríguez-Ramilo, Luis Alberto García-Cortés, María Ángeles Rodríguez de Cara

Abstract

Estimated breeding values (EBVs) are traditionally obtained from pedigree information. However, EBVs from high-density genotypes can have higher accuracy than EBVs from pedigree information. At the same time, it has been shown that EBVs from genomic data lead to lower increases in inbreeding compared with traditional selection based on genealogies. Here we evaluate the performance with BLUP selection based on genealogical coancestry with three different genome-based coancestry estimates: (1) an estimate based on shared segments of homozygosity, (2) an approach based on SNP-by-SNP count corrected by allelic frequencies, and (3) the identity by state methodology. We evaluate the effect of different population sizes, different number of genomic markers, and several heritability values for a quantitative trait. The performance of the different measures of coancestry in BLUP is evaluated in the true breeding values after truncation selection and also in terms of coancestry and diversity maintained. Accordingly, cross-performances were also carried out, that is, how prediction based on genealogical records impacts the three other measures of coancestry and inbreeding, and viceversa. Our results show that the genetic gains are very similar for all four coancestries, but the genomic-based methods are superior to using genealogical coancestries in terms of maintaining diversity measured as observed heterozygosity. Furthermore, the measure of coancestry based on shared segments of the genome seems to provide slightly better results on some scenarios, and the increase in inbreeding and loss in diversity is only slightly larger than the other genomic selection methods in those scenarios. Our results shed light on genomic selection vs. traditional genealogical-based BLUP and make the case to manage the population variability using genomic information to preserve the future success of selection programmes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 2%
Denmark 1 2%
France 1 2%
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 45 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 29%
Student > Master 13 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 1 2%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 31 63%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 18%
Mathematics 2 4%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 4 8%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 11 May 2015.
All research outputs
#12,920,756
of 22,797,621 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#2,729
of 11,761 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#120,642
of 264,847 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#76
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,797,621 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,761 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% 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 264,847 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 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.