Prediction of Genetic Resistance for Scrapie in Ungenotyped Sheep Using a Linear Animal Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Selection based on scrapie genotypes could improve the genetic resistance for scrapie in sheep. However, in practice, few animals are genotyped. The objectives were to define numerical values of scrapie resistance genotypes and adjust for their non-additive genetic effect; evaluate prediction accuracy of ungenotyped animals using linear animal model; and predict and assess selection response based on estimated breeding values (EBV) of ungenotyped animals. The scrapie resistance (SR) was defined by ranking scrapie genotypes from low (0) to high (4) resistance based on genotype risk groups and was also adjusted for non-additive genetic effect of the haplotypes. Genotypes were simulated for 1,671,890 animals from pedigree. The simulated alleles were assigned to scrapie haplotypes in two scenarios of high (SRh) and low (SRl) resistance populations. A sample of 20,000 genotyped animals were used to predict ungenotyped using animal model. Prediction accuracies for ungenotyped animals for SRh and SRl were 0.60 and 0.54, and for allele content were from 0.41 to 0.71, respectively. Response to selection on SRh and SRl increased SR by 0.52 and 0.28, and on allele content from 0.13 to 0.50, respectively. In addition, the selected animals had large proportion of homozygous for the favorable haplotypes. Thus, pre-selection prior to genotyping could reduce genotyping costs for breeding programs. Using a linear animal model to predict SR makes better use of available information for the breeding programs.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".