The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs
Open accessAbstract
Genetic evaluation based on information from phenotypes, pedigree and markers can be implemented using a recently developed single-step method. In this paper we compare accuracies of predicted breeding values for daily gain and feed conversion ratio (FCR) in Danish Duroc pigs obtained from different versions of single-step methods, the traditional pedigree-based method and the genomic BLUP (GBLUP) method. In particular, we present a single-step method with an adjustment of the genomic relationship matrix so that it is compatible to the pedigree-based relationship matrix. Comparisons are made for both genotyped and non-genotyped animals and univariate and bivariate models. The results show that the three methods with marker information (two single-step methods and GBLUP) produce more accurate predictions of genotyped animals than the pedigree-based method. In addition, single-step methods provide more accurate predictions for non-genotyped animals. The results also show that the single-step method with adjusted genomic relationship matrix produce more accurate predictions than the original single-step method. Finally, the results for the bivariate analyses show a somewhat improved accuracy and reduced inflation of predictions for FCR for the two single-step methods compared with the univariate analyses. The conclusions are: first, the methods with marker information improve prediction compared with the pedigree-based method; second, a single-step method, contrary to GBLUP, provides improved predictions for all animals compared to the pedigree-based method; and third, a single-step method should be used with an adjustment of the genomic relationship matrix.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Efficient Methods to Compute Genomic Predictions
VanRaden, P. M. (2008) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0980 · Cited by 6,050
Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges
Hayes, B. J., Bowman, P. J., Chamberlain, A. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2009) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1646 · Cited by 1,795
Aguilar, I., Misztal, I., Johnson, D. L., Legarra, A., Tsuruta, S., & Lawlor, T. J. (2010) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2730 · Cited by 1,491
Invited Review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls
VanRaden, P. M., Van Tassell, C. P., Wiggans, G. R., Sonstegard, T. S., Schnabel, R. D., Taylor, J. F., & Schenkel, F. S. (2009) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2008-1514 · Cited by 1,331
A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information
Legarra, A., Aguilar, I., & Misztal, I. (2009) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2009-2061 · Cited by 1,032
Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped
Christensen, O. F., & Lund, M. S. (2010) · Genetics Selection Evolution · doi:10.1186/1297-9686-42-2 · Cited by 903
Self-citationDeregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses
Garrick, D. J., Taylor, J. F., & Fernando, R. L. (2009) · Genetics Selection Evolution · doi:10.1186/1297-9686-41-55 · Cited by 653
Forni, S., Aguilar, I., & Misztal, I. (2011) · Genetics Selection Evolution · doi:10.1186/1297-9686-43-1 · Cited by 430
Reconciling the analysis of IBD and IBS in complex trait studies
Powell, J. E., Visscher, P. M., & Goddard, M. E. (2010) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg2865 · Cited by 389
Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection
VITEZICA, Z. G., AGUILAR, I., MISZTAL, I., & LEGARRA, A. (2011) · Genetics Research · doi:10.1017/s001667231100022x · Cited by 383
Cited by
Genomic selection methods for crop improvement: Current status and prospects
Wang, X., Xu, Y., Hu, Z., & Xu, C. (2018) · The Crop Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cj.2018.03.001 · Cited by 325
Metadata
- Authors
- Christensen, O. F., Madsen, P., Nielsen, B., Ostersen, T., & Su, G.
- Venue
- animal
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1565-1571
- ISSN
- 1751-7311 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1964595184
- Cited by
- 306
- References
- 16
- FWCI
- 7.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s1751731112000742
- The paper
- Christensen, O. F., Madsen, P., Nielsen, B., Ostersen, T., & Su, G. (2012). Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs. animal. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1751731112000742
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.