Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,224

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection

Open access
Habier, David, Fernando, Rohan L, Kizilkaya, Kadir, Garrick, Dorian J·2011·BMC Bioinformatics

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Two bayesian methods, BayesCπ and BayesDπ, were developed for genomic prediction to address the drawback of BayesA and BayesB regarding the impact of prior hyperparameters and treat the prior probability π that a SNP has zero effect as unknown. The methods were compared in terms of inference of the number of QTL and accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs), using simulated scenarios and real data from North American Holstein bulls. RESULTS: Estimates of π from BayesCπ, in contrast to BayesDπ, were sensitive to the number of simulated QTL and training data size, and provide information about genetic architecture. Milk yield and fat yield have QTL with larger effects than protein yield and somatic cell score. The drawback of BayesA and BayesB did not impair the accuracy of GEBVs. Accuracies of alternative Bayesian methods were similar. BayesA was a good choice for GEBV with the real data. Computing time was shorter for BayesCπ than for BayesDπ, and longest for our implementation of BayesA. CONCLUSIONS: Collectively, accounting for computing effort, uncertainty as to the number of QTL (which affects the GEBV accuracy of alternative methods), and fundamental interest in the number of QTL underlying quantitative traits, we believe that BayesCπ has merit for routine applications.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/1471-2105-12-186

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME: Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001, 157(4):1819–1829. [ http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/157/4/1819 ] · DOI · Paper page
  2. Hayes BJ, Bowman PJ, Chamberlain AJ, Goddard ME: Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci 2009, 92(2):433–443. [ http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/2/433 ] 10.3168/jds.2008-1646 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Jannink JL, Lorenz AJ, Iwata H: Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice. Briefings in Functional Genomics 2010, 9(2):166–177. [ http://bfg.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/9/2/166 ] 10.1093/bfgp/elq001 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Piepho HP: Ridge Regression and Extensions for Genomewide Selection in Maize. Crop Sci 2009, 49(4):1165–1176. [ https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/abstracts/49/4/1165 ] 10.2135/cropsci2008.10.0595 · DOI · Paper page
  5. Heffner EL, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL: Genomic Selection for Crop Improvement. Crop Sci 2009, 49: 1–12. [ https://www.crops.org/publications/cs/abstracts/49/1/1 ] 10.2135/cropsci2008.08.0512 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Zhong S, Dekkers JCM, Fernando RL, Jannink JL: Factors Affecting Accuracy From Genomic Selection in Populations Derived From Multiple Inbred Lines: A Barley Case Study. Genetics 2009, 182: 355–364. [ http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/182/1/355 ] 10.1534/genetics.108.098277 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM: The Impact of Genetic Relationship Information on Genome-Assisted Breeding Values. Genetics 2007, 177(4):2389–2397. [ http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/177/4/2389 ] · DOI · Paper page
  8. Habier D, Fernando RL, Dekkers JCM: Genomic Selection Using Low-Density Marker Panels. Genetics 2009, 182: 343–353. [ http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/182/1/343 ] 10.1534/genetics.108.100289 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Habier D, Tetens J, Seefried FR, Lichtner P, Thaller G: The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle. Genet Sel Evol 2010, 42: 5. 10.1186/1297-9686-42-5 · DOI · Paper page
  10. Hayes B, Bowman P, Chamberlain A, Verbyla K, Goddard M: Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations. Genet Sel Evol 2009, 41: 51. [ http://www.gsejournal.org/content/41/1/51 ] 10.1186/1297-9686-41-51 · DOI · Paper page
  11. Gianola D, de los Campos G, Hill WG, Manfredi E, Fernando R: Additive Genetic Variability and the Bayesian Alphabet. Genetics 2009, 183: 347–363. [ http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/183/1/347 ] 10.1534/genetics.109.103952 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Fernando RL, Habier D, Stricker C, Dekkers JCM, Totir LR: Genomic selection. Acta Agric Scand A Anim Sci 2008, 57(4):192–195.
  13. Sorensen D, Gianola D: Likelihood, Bayesian, and MCMC Methods in Quantitative Genetics. Springer-Verlag; 2002. · DOI · Paper page
  14. Godsill SJ: On the Relationship Between Markov chain Monte Carlo Methods for Model Uncertainty. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 2001, 10(2):230–248. [ http://pubs.amstat.org/doi/abs/10.1198/10618600152627924 ] 10.1198/10618600152627924 · DOI · Paper page
  15. García-Cortés LA, Sorensen D: On a multivariate implementation of the Gibbs-sampler. Genet Sel Evol 1996, 28: 121–126. 10.1186/1297-9686-28-1-121 · DOI
  16. Fernando RL, Garrick DJ: GenSel - user manual. 2009.
  17. Karlin S: Theoretical aspects of genetic map functions in recombination processes. In Human population genetics: The pittsburgh symposium. Edited by: Chakravarti A. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1984:209–228.
  18. Garrick D, Taylor J, Fernando R: Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses. Genet Sel Evol 2009, 41: 55. [ http://www.gsejournal.org/content/41/1/55 ] 10.1186/1297-9686-41-55 · DOI · Paper page
  19. Henderson CR: Sire evaluation and genetic trends. Animal Breeding and Genetics Symposium in Honor of Dr. Jay L. Lush. Champaign, IL., American Society of Animal Science and American Dairy Science Association 1973, 10–41.
  20. Henderson CR: Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model. Biometrics 1975, 31(2):423–447. 10.2307/2529430 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Daetwyler HD, Pong-Wong R, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA: The Impact of Genetic Architecture on Genome-Wide Evaluation Methods. Genetics 2010, 185(3):1021–1031. [ http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/185/3/1021 ] 10.1534/genetics.110.116855 · DOI · Paper page
  22. VanRaden PM, Van Tassell CP, Wiggans GR, Sonstegard TS, Schnabel RD, Taylor JF, Schenkel FS: Invited Review: Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci 2009, 92: 16–24. [ http://jds.fass.org/cgi/content/abstract/92/1/16 ] 10.3168/jds.2008-1514 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 1,224

Metadata

Authors
Habier, D., Fernando, R. L., Kizilkaya, K., & Garrick, D. J.
Venue
BMC Bioinformatics
Published
2011-05-23
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
186-186
ISSN
1471-2105 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2034846276
Cited by
1,224
References
2
FWCI
35.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 (tdm)

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: Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2105-12-186
The paper
Habier, D., Fernando, R. L., Kizilkaya, K., & Garrick, D. J. (2011). Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection. BMC Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-12-186

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.