Characterization of linkage disequilibrium, consistency of gametic phase and admixture in Australian and Canadian goats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Basic understanding of linkage disequilibrium (LD) and population structure, as well as the consistency of gametic phase across breeds is crucial for genome-wide association studies and successful implementation of genomic selection. However, it is still limited in goats. Therefore, the objectives of this research were: (i) to estimate genome-wide levels of LD in goat breeds using data generated with the Illumina Goat SNP50 BeadChip; (ii) to study the consistency of gametic phase across breeds in order to evaluate the possible use of a multi-breed training population for genomic selection and (iii) develop insights concerning the population history of goat breeds. RESULTS: Average r(2) between adjacent SNP pairs ranged from 0.28 to 0.11 for Boer and Rangeland populations. At the average distance between adjacent SNPs in the current 50 k SNP panel (~0.06 Mb), the breeds LaMancha, Nubian, Toggenburg and Boer exceeded or approached the level of linkage disequilibrium that is useful (r(2) > 0.2) for genomic predictions. In all breeds LD decayed rapidly with increasing inter-marker distance. The estimated correlations for all the breed pairs, except Canadian and Australian Boer populations, were lower than 0.70 for all marker distances greater than 0.02 Mb. These results are not high enough to encourage the pooling of breeds in a single training population for genomic selection. The admixture analysis shows that some breeds have distinct genotypes based on SNP50 genotypes, such as the Boer, Cashmere and Nubian populations. The other groups share higher genome proportions with each other, indicating higher admixture and a more diverse genetic composition. CONCLUSIONS: This work presents results of a diverse collection of breeds, which are of great interest for the implementation of genomic selection in goats. The LD results indicate that, with a large enough training population, genomic selection could potentially be implemented within breed with the current 50 k panel, but some breeds might benefit from a denser panel. For multi-breed genomic evaluation, a denser SNP panel also seems to be required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".