Quantitative Trait Loci Mapping for Dairy Cattle Production Traits Using a Maximum Likelihood Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A maximum likelihood method was developed for QTL mapping in half-sib designs and compared to the regression method in analyses of both field and simulated data. The field data consisted of milk production evaluations of 433 progeny tested sons of 6 sires and 64 microsatellite markers distributed over 12 chromosomes. Based on permutation tests, 5 significant QTL were detected in the field data by the regression method compared with 10 by the maximum likelihood method (P < 0.05). In field data analysis, the maximum likelihood method detected more significant QTL and had a smaller residual variance than the regression method. The simulation included 9 scenarios differing in number of families, family size, QTL variance, and marker density, each replicated 100 times. The simulation results suggested that, as for the regression method, the precision of estimating QTL from the maximum likelihood method improves with increasing number of sons per sire, increasing the ratio of QTL to phenotypic variance, and decreasing marker interval. The maximum likelihood method had a smaller dispersion of estimated QTL positions than the regression method in 6 of 9 scenarios simulated. Overall, the maximum likelihood method shows potential advantage in QTL detection over the regression method, especially in the situations with less favorable conditions for QTL detection.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".