Genomic evaluation and variance component estimation of additive and dominance effects using single nucleotide polymorphism markers in heterogeneous stock mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exploration of genetic variance has mostly been limited to additive effects estimated using pedigree data and non-additive effects have been ignored. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) marker models in the mixed and orthogonal framework including both additive and non-additive effects for estimating variances and genomic prediction in four diabetes-related traits in heterogeneous stock mice. Models have performed differently in detecting SNPs affecting traits. Dominance variances explained over 14.7 and 3.8% of genetic and phenotype variance in a Genomic prediction and variance component estimation method (GVCBLUP) framework. Reliabilities of additive Genomic best linear unbiased prediction model (GBLUP) in different traits ranged from 44.8 to 66.6%, for GVCBLUPs framework including both additive and dominance effects (MAD), and 46.1 to 69% for the model including additive effect (MA). Dominance GBLUP reliabilities ranged from 6 to 26.4% for MAD and from 22.5 to 50.5% in the model including dominance (MD). MA and MD had higher reliability for additive and dominance GBLUPs compared to MAD. Reliabilities of GBLUPs in MAD and MA for all traits were not significant except for growth slope (P < 0.01). In orthogonal framework models, epistasis variances accounted for a greater proportion (87.3, 89.1, 95.5, and 77.2%) of genetic variation for end weight, growth slope, body mass index, and body length, respectively. Heritability in a broad sense was estimated at 1.12, 1.67, 3.64, and 2.0%, in which non-additive heritability had a significant contribution. Genetic variances explained by dominance using GVCBLUPs were 16.8, 29.4, 14.6, and 14.9% for the traits. Generally, the non-additive models had a lower value of deviance information criterion (DIC) and performed better in estimating the variance component. Comparing the estimated variance by orthogonal framework models confirmed the results previously estimated by GVCBLUPs, with the difference that the estimates were shrinking. Following significant SNPs affecting diabetes-related traits by post-genome-wide studies could reveal unknown aspects and contribute to genetic control of the disease.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".