MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393949129 · doi:10.3390/ani14071098

Genomic Prediction of Growth Traits in Yorkshire Pigs of Different Reference Group Sizes Using Different Estimated Breeding Value Models

2024· article· en· W4393949129 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chang Yin, Haoran Shi, Peng Zhou, Y. Wang, Xuzhe Tao, Zongjun Yin, Xiaodong Zhang, Yang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenomic selectionBreedPopulationBiologyStatisticsBest linear unbiased predictionPurebredSelection (genetic algorithm)Animal scienceDemographyMathematicsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypeComputer scienceGeneticsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The need for sufficient reference population data poses a significant challenge in breeding programs aimed at improving pig farming on a small to medium scale. To overcome this hurdle, investigating the advantages of combing reference populations of varying sizes is crucial for enhancing the accuracy of the genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV). Genomic selection (GS) in populations with limited reference data can be optimized by combining populations of the same breed or related breeds. This study focused on understanding the effect of combing different reference group sizes on the accuracy of GS for determining the growth effectiveness and percentage of lean meat in Yorkshire pigs. Specifically, our study investigated two important traits: the age at 100 kg live weight (AGE100) and the backfat thickness at 100 kg live weight (BF100). This research assessed the efficiency of genomic prediction (GP) using different GEBV models across three Yorkshire populations with varying genetic backgrounds. The GeneSeek 50K GGP porcine high-density array was used for genotyping. A total of 2295 Yorkshire pigs were included, representing three Yorkshire pig populations with different genetic backgrounds-295 from Danish (small) lines from Huaibei City, Anhui Province, 500 from Canadian (medium) lines from Lixin County, Anhui Province, and 1500 from American (large) lines from Shanghai. To evaluate the impact of different population combination scenarios on the GS accuracy, three approaches were explored: (1) combining all three populations for prediction, (2) combining two populations to predict the third, and (3) predicting each population independently. Five GEBV models, including three Bayesian models (BayesA, BayesB, and BayesC), the genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) model, and single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) were implemented through 20 repetitions of five-fold cross-validation (CV). The results indicate that predicting one target population using the other two populations yielded the highest accuracy, providing a novel approach for improving the genomic selection accuracy in Yorkshire pigs. In this study, it was found that using different populations of the same breed to predict small- and medium-sized herds might be effective in improving the GEBV. This investigation highlights the significance of incorporating population combinations in genetic models for predicting the breeding value, particularly for pig farmers confronted with resource limitations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.684

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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