MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mapping QTL in the porcine MHC region affecting fatness and growth traits in a Meishan/Large White composite population

2010· article· en· W2154205874 on OpenAlexaff
Wenhua Wei, T.M. Skinner, J. Ansel Anderson, O. I. Southwood, Graham Plastow, Alan Archibald, Chris Haley

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Genetics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and Animals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsBiologyQuantitative trait locusGeneticsPopulationAlleleMajor histocompatibility complexLinkage (software)Genetic associationGenetic linkageGenotypeSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of studies have mapped QTL regulating porcine fatness and growth traits to the region of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) on porcine chromosome 7 using various experimental crosses. The QTL results from crosses using the Chinese Meishan (MS) (slow growing and fat) are particularly interesting because the MS alleles have been found to be associated with increased growth rate and reduced backfat depth. We investigated these QTL further in a composite population derived previously over eight generations by intercrossing Meishan and the European Large White breeds. Genotype information from 32 markers in a 15cM target region was used in linkage and association analyses. A two-step variance component analysis identified QTL for three growth-related traits, explaining 19 ∼ 24% of the phenotypic variance with a confidence interval of 4 cM in the target region. SNP association analyses found that ss181128966 and ss181128924 within the QTL interval were strongly associated with the growth traits. Only weak signals for an effect on backfat depth were found in the association and linkage analyses, possibly because of past directional selection in the composite population.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.513

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal GeneticsSame topicGenetic Mapping and Diversity in Plants and AnimalsFrench-language works237,207