Estimation of variance and genomic prediction using genotypes imputed from low‐density marker subsets for carcass traits in Japanese black cattle
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of genotype imputation using low-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) marker subsets on the genomic relationship matrix (G matrix), genetic variance explained, and genomic prediction (GP) was investigated for carcass weight and marbling score in Japanese Black fattened steers, using genotype data of approximately 40,000 SNPs. Genotypes were imputed using equally spaced SNP subsets of different densities. Two different linear models were used. The first (model 1) incorporated one G matrix, while the second (model 2) used two different G matrices constructed using the selected and remaining SNPs. When using model 1, the estimated additive genetic variance was always larger when using all SNPs obtained via genotype imputation than when using only equally spaced SNP subsets. The correlations between the genomic estimated breeding values obtained using genotype imputation with at least 3,000 SNPs and those using all available SNPs without imputation were higher than 0.99 for both traits. While additive genetic variance was likely to be partitioned with model 2, it did not enhance the accuracy of GP compared with model 1. These results indicate that genotype imputation using an equally spaced low-density panel of an appropriate size can be used to produce a cost-effective, valid GP.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it