Sequence-based GWAS meta-analyses for beef production traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Combining the results of within-population genome-wide association studies (GWAS) based on whole-genome sequences into a single meta-analysis (MA) is an accurate and powerful method for identifying variants associated with complex traits. As part of the H2020 BovReg project, we performed sequence-level MA for beef production traits. Five partners from France, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada contributed summary statistics from sequence-based GWAS conducted with 54,782 animals from 15 purebred or crossbred populations. We combined the summary statistics for four growth, nine morphology, and 15 carcass traits into 16 MA, using both fixed effects and z-score methods. Results The fixed-effects method was generally more informative to provide indication on potentially causal variants, although we combined substantially different traits in each MA. In comparison with within-population GWAS, this approach highlighted (i) a larger number of quantitative trait loci (QTL), (ii) QTL more frequently located in genomic regions known for their effects on growth and meat/carcass traits, (iii) a smaller number of genomic variants within the QTL, and (iv) candidate variants that were more frequently located in genes. MA pinpointed variants in genes, including MSTN, LCORL, and PLAG1 that have been previously associated with morphology and carcass traits. We also identified dozens of other variants located in genes associated with growth and carcass traits, or with a function that may be related to meat production (e.g., HS6ST1, HERC2, WDR75, COL3A1, SLIT2, MED28, and ANKAR). Some of these variants overlapped with expression or splicing QTL reported in the cattle Genotype-Tissue Expression atlas (CattleGTEx) and could therefore regulate gene expression. Conclusions By identifying candidate genes and potential causal variants associated with beef production traits in cattle, MA demonstrates great potential for investigating the biological mechanisms underlying these traits. As a complement to within-population GWAS, this approach can provide deeper insights into the genetic architecture of complex traits in beef cattle.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".