Comparison of genomic predictions for lowly heritable traits using multi-step and single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor in Holstein cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success and sustainability of a breeding program incorporating genomic information is largely dependent on the accuracy of predictions. For low heritability traits, large training populations are required to achieve high accuracies of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). By including genotyped and nongenotyped animals simultaneously in the evaluation, the single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) approach has the potential to deliver more accurate and less biased genomic evaluations. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and bias of genomic predictions for various traits in Canadian Holstein cattle using ssGBLUP and multi-step genomic BLUP (msGBLUP) under different strategies, such as (1) adding genomic information of cows in the analysis, (2) testing different adjustments of the genomic relationship matrix, and (3) using a blending approach to obtain GEBV from msGBLUP. The following genomic predictions were evaluated regarding accuracy and bias: (1) GEBV estimated by ssGBLUP; (2) direct genomic value estimated by msGBLUP with polygenic effects of 5 and 20%; and (3) GEBV calculated by a blending approach of direct genomic value with estimated breeding values using polygenic effects of 5 and 20%. The effect of adding genomic information of cows in the evaluation was also assessed for each approach. When genomic information was included in the analyses, the average improvement in observed reliability of predictions was observed to be 7 and 13 percentage points for reproductive and workability traits, respectively, compared with traditional BLUP. Absolute deviation from 1 of the regression coefficient of the linear regression of de-regressed estimated breeding values on genomic predictions went from 0.19 when using traditional BLUP to 0.22 when using the msGBLUP method, and to 0.14 when using the ssGBLUP method. The use of polygenic weight of 20% in the msGBLUP slightly improved the reliability of predictions, while reducing the bias. A similar trend was observed when a blending approach was used. Adding genomic information of cows increased reliabilities, while decreasing bias of genomic predictions when using the ssGBLUP method. Differences between using a training population with cows and bulls or with only bulls for the msGBLUP method were small, likely due to the small number of cows included in the analysis. Predictions for lowly heritable traits benefit greatly from genomic information, especially when all phenotypes, pedigrees, and genotypes are used in a single-step approach.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".