MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293216595 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2022.923766

Applicability of single-step genomic evaluation with a random regression model for reproductive traits in turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo)

2022· article· en· W4293216595 on OpenAlexafffund
Bayode O. Makanjuola, Emhimad A. Abdalla, Benjamin J. Wood, Christine F. Baes

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaOntario GenomicsGenome Canada
KeywordsBiologyMeleagris gallopavoHeritabilitySireFertilityTraitBest linear unbiased predictionSelection (genetic algorithm)Animal scienceGeneticsDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fertility and hatchability are economically important traits due to their effect on poult output coming from the turkey hatchery. Traditionally, fertility is recorded as the number of fertile eggs set in the incubator (FERT), defined at a time point during incubation by the identification of a developing embryo. Hatchability is recorded as either the number of fertile eggs that hatched (hatch of fertile, HOF) or the number hatched from all the eggs set (hatch of set, HOS). These traits are collected throughout the productive life of the bird and are conventionally cumulated, resulting in each bird having a single record per trait. Genetic evaluations of these traits have been estimated using pedigree relationships. However, the longitudinal nature of the traits and the availability of genomic information have renewed interest in using random regression (RR) to capture the differences in repeatedly recorded traits, as well as in the incorporation of genomic relationships. Therefore, the objectives of this study were: 1) to compare the applicability of a RR model with a cumulative model (CUM) using both pedigree and genomic information for genetic evaluation of FERT, HOF, and HOS and 2) to estimate and compare predictability from the models. For this study, a total of 63,935 biweekly FERT, HOF, and HOS records from 7,211 hens mated to 1,524 toms were available for a maternal turkey line. In total, 4,832 animals had genotypic records, and pedigree information on 11,191 animals was available. Estimated heritability from the CUM model using pedigree information was 0.11 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="m1"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math> 0.02, 0.24 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="m2"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math> 0.02, and 0.24 <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="m3"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math> 0.02 for FERT, HOF, and HOS, respectively. With random regression using pedigree relationships, heritability estimates were in the range of 0.04–0.09, 0.11–0.17, and 0.09–0.18 for FERT, HOF, and HOS, respectively. The incorporation of genomic information increased the heritability by an average of 28 and 23% for CUM and RR models, respectively. In addition, the incorporation of genomic information caused predictability to increase by approximately 11 and 7% for HOF and HOS, respectively; however, a decrease in predictability of about 12% was observed for FERT. Our findings suggest that RR models using pedigree and genomic relationships simultaneously will achieve a higher predictability than the traditional CUM model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.413
Threshold uncertainty score0.726

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207