The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the accuracy of genomic selection
Abstract
Summary: Estimated breeding values (EBVs) using data from genetic markers can be predicted using a genomic relationship matrix, derived from animal’s genotypes, and best linear unbiased prediction. However, if the accuracy of the EBVs is calculated in the usual manner (from the inverse element of the coefficient matrix), it is likely to be overestimated owing to sampling errors in elements of the genomic relationship matrix. We show here that the correct accuracy can be obtained by regressing the relationship matrix towards the pedigree relationship matrix so that it is an unbiased estimate of the relationships at the QTL controlling the trait. This method shows how the accuracy increases as the number of markers used increases because the regression coefficient (of genomic relationship towards pedigree relationship) increases. We also present a deterministic method for predicting the accuracy of such genomic EBVs before data on individual animals are collected. This method estimates the proportion of genetic variance explained by the markers, which is equal to the regression coefficient described above, and the accuracy with which marker effects are estimated. The latter depends on the variance in relationship between pairs of animals, which equals the mean linkage disequilibrium over all pairs of loci. The theory was validated using simulated data and data on fat concentration in the milk of Holstein cattle.
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
Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations
Hill, W. G., & Robertson, A. (1968) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/bf01245622 · Cited by 2,035
Recent human effective population size estimated from linkage disequilibrium
Tenesa, A., Navarro, P., Hayes, B. J., Duffy, D. L., Clarke, G. M., Goddard, M. E., & Visscher, P. M. (2007) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.6023607 · Cited by 438
Self-citation
Cited by
Accelerating Improvement of Livestock with Genomic Selection
Meuwissen, T., Hayes, B., & Goddard, M. (2013) · Annual Review of Animal Biosciences · doi:10.1146/annurev-animal-031412-103705 · Cited by 339
Self-citationGenomic 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
Combs, E., & Bernardo, R. (2013) · The Plant Genome · doi:10.3835/plantgenome2012.11.0030 · Cited by 208
Kernel-based whole-genome prediction of complex traits: a review
Morota, G., & Gianola, D. (2014) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2014.00363 · Cited by 162
Ridge, Lasso and Bayesian additive-dominance genomic models
Azevedo, C. F., de Resende, M. D. V., e Silva, F. F., Viana, J. M. S., Valente, M. S. F., Resende, M. F. R., & Muñoz, P. (2015) · BMC Genetics · doi:10.1186/s12863-015-0264-2 · Cited by 71
Metadata
- Authors
- Goddard, M. E., Hayes, B. J., & Meuwissen, T. H. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-11-07
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 409-421
- ISSN
- 0044-3581 (ISSN-L)
- 0931-2668
- 1439-0388
- OpenAlex
- W1607760198
- Cited by
- 357
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the accuracy of genomic selection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2011.00964.x
- The paper
- Goddard, M. E., Hayes, B. J., & Meuwissen, T. H. E. (2011). Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the accuracy of genomic selection. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0388.2011.00964.x
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.