The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Genomic prediction of breeding values involves a so-called training analysis that predicts the influence of small genomic regions by regression of observed information on marker genotypes for a given population of individuals. Available observations may take the form of individual phenotypes, repeated observations, records on close family members such as progeny, estimated breeding values (EBV) or their deregressed counterparts from genetic evaluations. The literature indicates that researchers are inconsistent in their approach to using EBV or deregressed data, and as to using the appropriate methods for weighting some data sources to account for heterogeneous variance. METHODS: A logical approach to using information for genomic prediction is introduced, which demonstrates the appropriate weights for analyzing observations with heterogeneous variance and explains the need for and the manner in which EBV should have parent average effects removed, be deregressed and weighted. RESULTS: An appropriate deregression for genomic regression analyses is EBV/r2 where EBV excludes parent information and r2 is the reliability of that EBV. The appropriate weights for deregressed breeding values are neither the reliability nor the prediction error variance, two alternatives that have been used in published studies, but the ratio (1 - h2)/[(c + (1 - r2)/r2)h2] where c > 0 is the fraction of genetic variance not explained by markers. CONCLUSIONS: Phenotypic information on some individuals and deregressed data on others can be combined in genomic analyses using appropriate weighting.
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
Cited by
Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes
WANG, H., MISZTAL, I., AGUILAR, I., LEGARRA, A., & MUIR, W. M. (2012) · Genetics Research · doi:10.1017/s0016672312000274 · Cited by 632
MacLeod, I. M., Bowman, P. J., Vander Jagt, C. J., Haile-Mariam, M., Kemper, K. E., Chamberlain, A. J., Schrooten, C., Hayes, B. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2016) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/s12864-016-2443-6 · Cited by 328
Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs
Christensen, O. F., Madsen, P., Nielsen, B., Ostersen, T., & Su, G. (2012) · animal · doi:10.1017/s1751731112000742 · Cited by 306
Case–control association mapping by proxy using family history of disease
Liu, J. Z., Erlich, Y., & Pickrell, J. K. (2017) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng.3766 · Cited by 238
A stage‐wise approach for the analysis of multi‐environment trials
Piepho, H., Möhring, J., Schulz‐Streeck, T., & Ogutu, J. O. (2012) · Biometrical Journal · doi:10.1002/bimj.201100219 · Cited by 193
Metadata
- Authors
- Garrick, D. J., Taylor, J. F., & Fernando, R. L.
- Venue
- Genetics Selection Evolution
- Published
- 2009-12
- Volume
- 41
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 55-55
- ISSN
- 0999-193X (ISSN-L)
- 1297-9686
- OpenAlex
- W2110974472
- Cited by
- 653
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 10.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1297-9686-41-55
- The paper
- Garrick, D. J., Taylor, J. F., & Fernando, R. L. (2009). Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses. Genetics Selection Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-41-55
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.