Applicability of single-step genomic evaluation with a random regression model for reproductive traits in turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 ± 0.02, 0.24 ± 0.02, and 0.24 ± 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".