Use of marker haplotypes to refine covariances among relatives for breeding value estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Markers flanking DNA regions, where quantitative trait loci (QTL) have been previously spotted, can be used to trace the common inheritance of major genes for a better definition of covariances among animals. A practical approach to the use of marker data to refine the additive relationship matrix used in the traditional best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) methodology is presented. The technique allows the number of the mixed model equations to be kept to an animal level, blending polygenic pedigree data with marker haplotype information. The advantage of this marker‐assisted selection (MAS) approach over BLUP selection has been assessed through a stochastic simulation. A finite locus model with 32 independent biallelic loci was generated with normally distributed allelic effects. The heritability of the trait, measured on both sexes and on females only, was set to 0.2 and 0.5. Five‐allelic markers 2, 10 and 20 cM apart, bracketed the QTL with the largest effect on the trait, accounting for 17% of the genetic variance. The bracketed QTL had two or eight alleles and its position was undefined within the bracket. Results show a moderate 2% advantage of MAS over BLUP in terms of higher genetic response when trait was recorded on both sexes and heritability was 0.2. The benefit is in the short term, but it lasts longer with polyallelic QTL. When the trait was recorded on females only, MAS produced only a small and insignificant genetic gain, but reduced the overall inbreeding in the population. MAS was also inefficient when heritability was 0.5.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".