Multi‐trait genomic predictions using GBLUP and Bayesian mixture prior model in beef cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Multiple trait genomic selection incorporating correlated traits can improve the predictive ability of low‐heritability traits. In this study, we evaluated genomic prediction accuracy using multi‐trait BayesCπ method (MT‐BayesCπ), which allows for a broader range of mixture priors for important traits in beef cattle. We compared the prediction performance of MT‐BayesCπ with single‐trait genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ST‐GBLUP), multi‐trait GBLUP (MT‐GBLUP), and single‐trait BayeCπ (ST‐BayesCπ) methods. We found that ribeye area (REA) and ribeye weight (REWT) showed high heritability, while slaughter weight (SWT) and carcass weight (CWT) displayed medium heritability, and slaughter rate (SR) and feedlot average daily gain (FDG) showed low heritability. Highly positive genetic correlations were observed between CWT and SWT (0.981) and SR and REWT (0.921). Notably, the MT‐BayesCπ method showed superior predictive abilities compared to other models. Using MT‐BayesCπ method, the accuracy increased from 0.272 to 0.694 for CWT compared to ST‐GBLUP and ST‐BayesCπ. MT‐GBLUP and ST‐BayesCπ showed similar prediction accuracies, while MT‐BayesCπ showed the least biased evaluations. Additionally, our results suggested that prediction accuracy of low‐heritability traits significantly increased when they were combined with traits with high genetic correlation in a multi‐trait prediction. Our study suggests that multi‐trait genomic predictions using GBLUP and Bayesian mixture prior models is feasible for genomic selection in beef cattle. Our findings indicate that MT‐BayesCπ outperforms other models (ST‐GBLUP, MT‐GBLUP and ST‐BayesCπ), especially for low‐heritability traits.
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".