Improving Genomic Predictions in Multi-Breed Cattle Populations: A Comparative Analysis of BayesR and GBLUP Models
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: Numerous studies have demonstrated that the amalgamation of populations belonging to the same breed or closely related breeds leads to enhanced accuracies in genomic predictions (GP). Extensive experimentation with diverse Bayesian and Genome-enabled best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) models has been conducted to explore multi-breed genomic selection (GS) in livestock, ultimately establishing they as successful approaches for predicting genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV). This study aimed to examine the efficacy of BayesR and GBLUP model with different weighted genomic relationship matrices (GRM) in making genomic predictions for three distinct beef cattle breeds. Subsequently, we conducted a comparative analysis of the predictive accuracy pertaining to various marker densities and genetic correlations across three distinct beef cattle breeds. This investigation aimed to identify the optimal approach for enhancing the predictive accuracy of multi-breed genomic selection in beef cattle. Results：Genetic relationship matrices revealed moderate similarities between YL and the other breeds, with a striking genetic similarity of 0.87 between WG and HX. In HX cattle, BayesR demonstrated an enhancement in prediction accuracy, achieving 0.52 with HD and 0.46 with WGS, a marked improvement over 0.41 with HD and 0.42 with WGS in GBLUP. In WG and YL breeds, both methods showed comparable accuracies with HD, but BayesR slightly outperformed GBLUP with WGS. Further, multi-breed GS analysis indicated that BayesR consistently surpassed GBLUP in prediction accuracy, particularly with WGS data. For instance, in a combined HX and WG reference population, BayesR achieved a superior accuracy of 0.53 with WGS in HX cattle, a significant enhancement over GBLUP models. The study also underscores the advantage of incorporating multiple breeds in the reference population, which improved prediction accuracy, underscoring the value of broad-based genomic selection strategies. Conclusion: The results show that accuracy of multi-breed genomic predictions was higher with BayesR than with GBLUP, especially for the distantly genetic relationship between reference and validation breeds. Further improvements of multi-breed accuracy of genomic predictions could be achieved by increasing the density of the SNP marker. These findings underscore that BayesR providing a substantial improvement in genomic prediction and the importance of considering genetic relationships in the development of GS strategies for multi-breed cattle populations. Further research is warranted to optimize GRM construction and to explore alternative models for genomic prediction across breeds.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».