MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114143990 · doi:10.1071/an11117

Integration of genomic information into beef cattle and sheep genetic evaluations in Australia

2011· article· en· W2114143990 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Swan, D. J. Johnston, D. J. Brown, Bruce Tier, Hans-U. Graser

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Production Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Genetics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomic selectionBeef cattleSelection (genetic algorithm)Genomic informationBiologySNPBiotechnologyGenetic gainSingle-nucleotide polymorphismBest linear unbiased predictionGenetic variationGeneticsComputational biologyGenomeComputer scienceGenotypeMachine learningGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic information has the potential to change the way beef cattle and sheep are selected and to substantially increase genetic gains. Ideally, genomic data will be used in combination with pedigree and phenotypic data to increase the accuracy of estimated breeding values (EBVs) and selection indexes. The first example of this in Australia was the integration of four markers for tenderness into beef cattle breeding values. Subsequently, the availability of high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panels has made selection using genomic information possible, while at the same time creating significant challenges for genetic evaluation with regard to both data management and statistical modelling. Reference populations have been established in both the beef cattle and sheep industries, in which an extensive range of phenotypes have been collected and animals genotyped mainly using 50K SNP panels. From this information, genomic predictions of breeding value have been developed, albeit with varying levels of accuracy. These predictions have been incorporated into routine genetic evaluations using three approaches and trial results are now available to breeders. In the first, genomic predictions have been included in genetic evaluation models as additional traits. The challenges with this method have been the construction of consistent genetic covariance matrices, and a significant increase in computing time. The second approach has been to use a selection index procedure to blend genomic predictions with existing EBVs. This method has been shown to produce very similar results, and has the advantage of being simple to implement and fast to operate, although consistent genetic covariance matrices are still required. Third, in sheep a single-step analysis combining a genomic relationship matrix with a standard pedigree-based relationship matrix has been used to estimate breeding values for carcass and eating-quality traits. It is likely that this procedure or one similar will be incorporated into routine evaluations in the near future. While significant progress has been made in implementing methods of integrating genomic information in both beef and sheep evaluations in Australia, the major challenges for the future will be to continue to collect the phenotypes needed to derive accurate genomic predictions, and in managing much larger volumes of genomic data as the number of animals genotyped and the density of markers increase.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Production ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207