Genotype imputation in a tropical crossbred dairy cattle population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to investigate different strategies for genotype imputation in a population of crossbred Girolando (Gyr × Holstein) dairy cattle. The data set consisted of 478 Girolando, 583 Gyr, and 1,198 Holstein sires genotyped at high density with the Illumina BovineHD (Illumina, San Diego, CA) panel, which includes ∼777K markers. The accuracy of imputation from low (20K) and medium densities (50K and 70K) to the HD panel density and from low to 50K density were investigated. Seven scenarios using different reference populations (RPop) considering Girolando, Gyr, and Holstein breeds separately or combinations of animals of these breeds were tested for imputing genotypes of 166 randomly chosen Girolando animals. The population genotype imputation were performed using FImpute. Imputation accuracy was measured as the correlation between observed and imputed genotypes (CORR) and also as the proportion of genotypes that were imputed correctly (CR). This is the first paper on imputation accuracy in a Girolando population. The sample-specific imputation accuracies ranged from 0.38 to 0.97 (CORR) and from 0.49 to 0.96 (CR) imputing from low and medium densities to HD, and 0.41 to 0.95 (CORR) and from 0.50 to 0.94 (CR) for imputation from 20K to 50K. The CORRanim exceeded 0.96 (for 50K and 70K panels) when only Girolando animals were included in RPop (S1). We found smaller CORRanim when Gyr (S2) was used instead of Holstein (S3) as RPop. The same behavior was observed between S4 (Gyr + Girolando) and S5 (Holstein + Girolando) because the target animals were more related to the Holstein population than to the Gyr population. The highest imputation accuracies were observed for scenarios including Girolando animals in the reference population, whereas using only Gyr animals resulted in low imputation accuracies, suggesting that the haplotypes segregating in the Girolando population had a greater effect on accuracy than the purebred haplotypes. All chromosomes had similar imputation accuracies (CORRsnp) within each scenario. Crossbred animals (Girolando) must be included in the reference population to provide the best imputation accuracies.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".