MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134473168 · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-19534

Genomic studies of milk-related traits in water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis) based on single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction and random regression models

2021· article· en· W3134473168 on OpenAlexaff
Sirlene Fernandes Lázaro, Humberto Tonhati, Hinayah Rojas de Oliveira, Alessandra Alves Silva, André Vieira do Nascimento, Daniel Jordan de Abreu Santos, Gabriela Stefani, Luiz F. Brito

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsHeritabilityBest linear unbiased predictionBiologySelection (genetic algorithm)Linear regressionGenetic correlationStatisticsGenomic selectionRegressionBrown SwissDairy cattleGenetic variationMathematicsGeneticsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGeneGenotypeComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genomic selection has been widely implemented in many livestock breeding programs, but it remains incipient in buffalo. Therefore, this study aimed to (1) estimate variance components incorporating genomic information in Murrah buffalo; (2) evaluate the performance of genomic prediction for milk-related traits using single- and multitrait random regression models (RRM) and the single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction approach; and (3) estimate longitudinal SNP effects and candidate genes potentially associated with time-dependent variation in milk, fat, and protein yields, as well as somatic cell score (SCS) in multiple parities. The data used to estimate the genetic parameters consisted of a total of 323,140 test-day records. The average daily heritability estimates were moderate (0.35 ± 0.02 for milk yield, 0.22 ± 0.03 for fat yield, 0.42 ± 0.03 for protein yield, and 0.16 ± 0.03 for SCS). The highest heritability estimates, considering all traits studied, were observed between 20 and 280 d in milk (DIM). The genetic correlation estimates at different DIM among the evaluated traits ranged from -0.10 (156 to 185 DIM for SCS) to 0.61 (36 to 65 DIM for fat yield). In general, direct selection for any of the traits evaluated is expected to result in indirect genetic gains for milk yield, fat yield, and protein yield but also increase SCS at certain lactation stages, which is undesirable. The predicted RRM coefficients were used to derive the genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) for each time point (from 5 to 305 DIM). In general, the tuning parameters evaluated when constructing the hybrid genomic relationship matrices had a small effect on the GEBV accuracy and a greater effect on the bias estimates. The SNP solutions were back-solved from the GEBV predicted from the Legendre random regression coefficients, which were then used to estimate the longitudinal SNP effects (from 5 to 305 DIM). The daily SNP effect for 3 different lactation stages were performed considering 3 different lactation stages for each trait and parity: from 5 to 70, from 71 to 150, and from 151 to 305 DIM. Important genomic regions related to the analyzed traits and parities that explain more than 0.50% of the total additive genetic variance were selected for further analyses of candidate genes. In general, similar potential candidate genes were found between traits, but our results suggest evidence of differential sets of candidate genes underlying the phenotypic expression of the traits across parities. These results contribute to a better understanding of the genetic architecture of milk production traits in dairy buffalo and reinforce the relevance of incorporating genomic information to genetically evaluate longitudinal traits in dairy buffalo. Furthermore, the candidate genes identified can be used as target genes in future functional genomics studies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207