The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: The impact of additive-genetic relationships captured by single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) on the accuracy of genomic breeding values (GEBVs) has been demonstrated, but recent studies on data obtained from Holstein populations have ignored this fact. However, this impact and the accuracy of GEBVs due to linkage disequilibrium (LD), which is fairly persistent over generations, must be known to implement future breeding programs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data set used to investigate these questions consisted of 3,863 German Holstein bulls genotyped for 54,001 SNPs, their pedigree and daughter yield deviations for milk yield, fat yield, protein yield and somatic cell score. A cross-validation methodology was applied, where the maximum additive-genetic relationship (amax) between bulls in training and validation was controlled. GEBVs were estimated by a Bayesian model averaging approach (BayesB) and an animal model using the genomic relationship matrix (G-BLUP). The accuracy of GEBVs due to LD was estimated by a regression approach using accuracy of GEBVs and accuracy of pedigree-based BLUP-EBVs. RESULTS: Accuracy of GEBVs obtained by both BayesB and G-BLUP decreased with decreasing amax for all traits analyzed. The decay of accuracy tended to be larger for G-BLUP and with smaller training size. Differences between BayesB and G-BLUP became evident for the accuracy due to LD, where BayesB clearly outperformed G-BLUP with increasing training size. CONCLUSIONS: GEBV accuracy of current selection candidates varies due to different additive-genetic relationships relative to the training data. Accuracy of future candidates can be lower than reported in previous studies because information from close relatives will not be available when selection on GEBVs is applied. A Bayesian model averaging approach exploits LD information considerably better than G-BLUP and thus is the most promising method. Cross-validations should account for family structure in the data to allow for long-lasting genomic based breeding plans in animal and plant breeding.
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
Prediction of Total Genetic Value Using Genome-Wide Dense Marker Maps
Meuwissen, T. H. E., Hayes, B. J., & Goddard, M. E. (2001) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/157.4.1819 · Cited by 7,917
Efficient Methods to Compute Genomic Predictions
VanRaden, P. M. (2008) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2007-0980 · Cited by 6,050
Best Linear Unbiased Estimation and Prediction under a Selection Model
Henderson, C. R. (1975) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529430 · Cited by 2,497
Scheet, P., & Stephens, M. (2006) · The American Journal of Human Genetics · doi:10.1086/502802 · Cited by 1,941
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
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
The Impact of Genetic Relationship Information on Genome-Assisted Breeding Values
Habier, D., Fernando, R. L., & Dekkers, J. C. M. (2007) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.107.081190 · Cited by 1,320
Self-citationGenomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response
Goddard, M. (2009) · Genetica · doi:10.1007/s10709-008-9308-0 · Cited by 1,089
Grisart, B., Coppieters, W., Farnir, F., Karim, L., Ford, C., Berzi, P., Cambisano, N., Mni, M., Reid, S., Simon, P., et al. (2002) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.224202 · Cited by 965
Strategy for applying genome‐wide selection in dairy cattle
Schaeffer, L. R. (2006) · Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics · doi:10.1111/j.1439-0388.2006.00595.x · Cited by 861
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
Daetwyler, H. D., Calus, M. P. L., Pong-Wong, R., de los Campos, G., & Hickey, J. M. (2013) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.112.147983 · Cited by 455
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
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
Wang, Y., Guo, J., Ni, G., Yang, J., Visscher, P. M., & Yengo, L. (2020) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-17719-y · Cited by 271
Metadata
- Authors
- Habier, D., Tetens, J., Seefried, F.-R., Lichtner, P., & Thaller, G.
- Venue
- Genetics Selection Evolution
- Published
- 2010-02-19
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 5-5
- ISSN
- 0999-193X (ISSN-L)
- 1297-9686
- OpenAlex
- W2119372134
- Cited by
- 455
- References
- 28
- FWCI
- 19.62
- 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: The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1297-9686-42-5
- The paper
- Habier, D., Tetens, J., Seefried, F.-R., Lichtner, P., & Thaller, G. (2010). The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. Genetics Selection Evolution. https://doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-42-5
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.