MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388528811 · doi:10.1093/jas/skad281.485

PSVI-11 Genome-Wide Association Study for 4 Behavior Traits in a Population of Labrador Retrievers Bred as Guide Dogs

2023· article· en· W4388528811 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Molly M Riser, Eldin A. Leighton, Jane Russenberger, Caroline Moser, Breno Fragomeni

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismBiologySNPGeneticsPopulationGenome-wide association studyGenetic architectureGenetic associationSelection (genetic algorithm)SNP genotypingPhenotypeGenotypeGeneMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this study was to assess the genetic architecture and investigate genomic regions associated with Body Handling, Harness sensitivity, Self-modulation, and Noise sensitivity in Labrador Retrievers used as guide dogs. A single-step genome-wide association study (ssGWAS) was used for this purpose. Phenotypic data were collected in 4,841 Labrador Retrievers with ages ranging from 3 months to 2.5 years, for all four traits. Phenotypes were selected from the Behavior Checklist, which is a scoring tool used by a skilled scorer to describe aspects of behavior observed during a variety of assessments including formal tests and while training or observing another handler working with the dog. The pedigree file contained 23,593 animals with birth years ranging from 1991 to 2019 from two populations with related ancestors. Genomic data were available for 457 individuals and were obtained by selecting 250K SNPs from whole genome sequences. Associations were calculated as the percentage of variance explained by windows of 80 adjacent SNPs. SNP variances were calculated based on SNP effects that were obtained by back-solving genomic estimated breeding values obtained with the single-step GBLUP method in a genomic selection program with the same population. Additionally, the genomic relationship matrix was modified under a weighted ssGBLUP (wssGBLUP) approach that allowed SNPs to have different distributions. Manhattan plots were generated with the variance explained by SNP windows for 3 iterations of wssGBLUP. After visual inspection of the Manhattan plots, the R package GALLO was used to annotate the genes located within the peaks that explained 0.6% or more of the genetic variance. The maximum amount of variance explained by a window of 80 SNPs was 1.1% for Body Handling. This trait presented three other regions explaining more than 0.6% of the genetic variance. Harness sensitivity presented four peaks above the threshold, with the major one explaining 0.75% of the genetic variance. Self-modulation and Noise sensitivity both had their major peak explaining 0.95% of the genetic variance and presented four and three regions above the threshold, respectively. The genes annotated in the candidate regions were not specifically related to behavior, nor were they involved in any pathway with biological relevance to the phenotypes. Moreover, some of the regions were not annotated, and no associated genes were found. The traits studied in this project were shown to be polygenic and complex, and that explains the lack of major genes. It is expected that the quality of associations will improve as the sample size increases. The next steps of this project are to increase the number of genotyped animals, increase the number of markers, and adopt alternative annotation and enrichment tools for the post-GWAS analysis.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207