Invited review: Inbreeding in the genomics era: Inbreeding, inbreeding depression, and management of genomic variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, pedigree-based relationship coefficients have been used to manage the inbreeding and degree of inbreeding depression that exists within a population. The widespread incorporation of genomic information in dairy cattle genetic evaluations allows for the opportunity to develop and implement methods to manage populations at the genomic level. As a result, the realized proportion of the genome that 2 individuals share can be more accurately estimated instead of using pedigree information to estimate the expected proportion of shared alleles. Furthermore, genomic information allows genome-wide relationship or inbreeding estimates to be augmented to characterize relationships for specific regions of the genome. Region-specific stretches can be used to more effectively manage areas of low genetic diversity or areas that, when homozygous, result in reduced performance across economically important traits. The use of region-specific metrics should allow breeders to more precisely manage the trade-off between the genetic value of the progeny and undesirable side effects associated with inbreeding. Methods tailored toward more effectively identifying regions affected by inbreeding and their associated use to manage the genome at the herd level, however, still need to be developed. We have reviewed topics related to inbreeding, measures of relatedness, genetic diversity and methods to manage populations at the genomic level, and we discuss future challenges related to managing populations through implementing genomic methods at the herd and population levels.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".