MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391933109 · doi:10.3390/genes15020253

Improving Genomic Predictions in Multi-Breed Cattle Populations: A Comparative Analysis of BayesR and GBLUP Models

2024· article· en· W4391933109 on OpenAlexaff
Haoran Ma, Hongwei Li, Fei Ge, Huqiong Zhao, Bo Zhu, Lupei Zhang, Huijiang Gao, Lingyang Xu, Junya Li, Zezhao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueGenes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomic selectionBest linear unbiased predictionBreedBeef cattleSelection (genetic algorithm)BiologyLinkage disequilibriumGeneticsBiotechnologyComputational biologySingle-nucleotide polymorphismComputer scienceGenotypeMachine learningGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies have shown that combining populations from similar or closely related genetic breeds improves the accuracy of genomic predictions (GP). Extensive experimentation with diverse Bayesian and genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) models have been developed to explore multi-breed genomic selection (GS) in livestock, ultimately establishing them as successful approaches for predicting genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV). This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of using BayesR and GBLUP models with linkage disequilibrium (LD)-weighted genomic relationship matrices (GRMs) for genomic prediction in three different beef cattle breeds to identify the best approach for enhancing the accuracy of multi-breed genomic selection in beef cattle. Additionally, a comparison was conducted to evaluate the predictive precision of different marker densities and genetic correlations among the three breeds of beef cattle. The GRM between Yunling cattle (YL) and other breeds demonstrated modest affinity and highlighted a notable genetic concordance of 0.87 between Chinese Wagyu (WG) and Huaxi (HX) cattle. In the within-breed GS, BayesR demonstrated an advantage over GBLUP. The prediction accuracies for HX cattle using the BayesR model were 0.52 with BovineHD BeadChip data (HD) and 0.46 with whole-genome sequencing data (WGS). In comparison to the GBLUP model, the accuracy increased by 26.8% for HD data and 9.5% for WGS data. For WG and YL, BayesR doubled the within-breed prediction accuracy to 14.3% from 7.1%, outperforming GBLUP across both HD and WGS datasets. Moreover, analyzing multiple breeds using genomic selection showed that BayesR consistently outperformed GBLUP in terms of predictive accuracy, especially when using WGS. For instance, in a mixed reference population of HX and WG, BayesR achieved a significant accuracy of 0.53 using WGS for HX, which was a substantial enhancement over the accuracies obtained with GBLUP models. The research further highlights the benefit of including various breeds in the reference group, leading to enhanced accuracy in predictions and emphasizing the importance of comprehensive genomic selection methods. Our research findings indicate that BayesR exhibits superior performance compared to GBLUP in multi-breed genomic prediction accuracy, achieving a maximum improvement of 33.3%, especially in genetically diverse breeds. The improvement can be attributed to the effective utilization of higher single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) marker density by BayesR, resulting in enhanced prediction accuracy. This evidence conclusively demonstrates the significant impact of BayesR on enhancing genomic predictions in diverse cattle populations, underscoring the crucial role of genetic relatedness in selection methodologies. In parallel, subsequent studies should focus on refining GRM and exploring alternative models for GP.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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