Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 805

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of Genetic Architecture on Genome-Wide Evaluation Methods

Open access
Daetwyler, Hans D, Pong-Wong, Ricardo, Villanueva, Beatriz, Woolliams, John A·2010·Genetics

Abstract

The rapid increase in high-throughput single-nucleotide polymorphism data has led to a great interest in applying genome-wide evaluation methods to identify an individual's genetic merit. Genome-wide evaluation combines statistical methods with genomic data to predict genetic values for complex traits. Considerable uncertainty currently exists in determining which genome-wide evaluation method is the most appropriate. We hypothesize that genome-wide methods deal differently with the genetic architecture of quantitative traits and genomes. A genomic linear method (GBLUP), and a genomic nonlinear Bayesian variable selection method (BayesB) are compared using stochastic simulation across three effective population sizes and a wide range of numbers of quantitative trait loci (NQTL). GBLUP had a constant accuracy, for a given heritability and sample size, regardless of NQTL. BayesB had a higher accuracy than GBLUP when NQTL was low, but this advantage diminished as NQTL increased and when NQTL became large, GBLUP slightly outperformed BayesB. In addition, deterministic equations are extended to predict the accuracy of both methods and to estimate the number of independent chromosome segments (Me) and NQTL. The predictions of accuracy and estimates of Me and NQTL were generally in good agreement with results from simulated data. We conclude that the relative accuracy of GBLUP and BayesB for a given number of records and heritability are highly dependent on Me, which is a property of the target genome, as well as the architecture of the trait (NQTL).

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 · 10.1534/genetics.110.116855

Cites

6 of 6 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 6 references

Research works printed but not linked: 35

  1. 2007, J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 124, 369, 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00693.x · doi:10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00693.x
  2. 2008, PLoS One, 3, e3395, 10.1371/journal.pone.0003395 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 2007, J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 124, 331, 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00701.x · DOI · Paper page
  4. 1992, J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B Methodological, 54, 657, 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1992.tb01443.x · DOI · Paper page
  5. 2009, Genetics, 183, 347, 10.1534/genetics.109.103952 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 1995, Biometrics, 51, 1440, 10.2307/2533274 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 2009, Genetica, 136, 245, 10.1007/s10709-008-9308-0 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 2001, Nat. Genet., 29, 109, 10.1038/ng1001-109 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 2004, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 101, 2398, 10.1073/pnas.0308518100 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 2007, Genetics, 177, 2389, 10.1534/genetics.107.081190 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 2009, J. Dairy Sci., 92, 433, 10.3168/jds.2008-1646 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 2009, Proc. Assoc. Advmt. Anim. Breed., 17, 352
  13. 2009, Genet. Res., 91, 47, 10.1017/S0016672308009981 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 1975, Biometrics, 31, 423, 10.2307/2529430 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 2008, PLoS Genet., 4, e1000231, 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000231 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 2007, J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 124, 377, 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00694.x · DOI
  17. 2009, BMC Proc., 3, S1
  18. 2001, Genetics, 157, 1819, 10.1093/genetics/157.4.1819 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 2009, Genet. Select. Evol., 41, 35, 10.1186/1297-9686-41-35 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 2009, Evol., 41, 2
  21. 1997, J. Anim. Sci., 75, 1738, 10.2527/1997.7571738x · DOI
  22. 2010, BMC Proc., 4, S4, 10.1186/1753-6561-4-S1-S4 · doi:10.1186/1753-6561-4-s1-s4
  23. 2008, Anim. Genomics Anim. Health, 132, 219, 10.1159/000317163 · doi:10.1159/000317163
  24. 2006, Nature, 444, 444, 10.1038/nature05329 · DOI · Paper page
  25. 2009, Evol., 41, 29
  26. 1971, Theor. Popul. Biol., 2, 125, 10.1016/0040-5809(71)90011-6 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 2005, Genetics, 170, 1435, 10.1534/genetics.105.040469 · DOI
  28. 2009, J. Dairy Sci., 92, 16, 10.3168/jds.2008-1514 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 2005, J. Anim. Sci., 83, 1747, 10.2527/2005.8381747x · DOI
  30. 2006, PLoS Genet.s, 2, 316
  31. 1994, Genet. Select. Evol., 26, 91, 10.1186/1297-9686-26-2-91 · DOI
  32. 1993, Anim. Prod., 56, 179
  33. 2003, Genetics, 163, 789, 10.1093/genetics/163.2.789 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 2008, Genetics, 179, 1045, 10.1534/genetics.107.085589 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 2009, Genetics, 182, 355, 10.1534/genetics.108.098277 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 805

Metadata

Authors
Daetwyler, H. D., Pong-Wong, R., Villanueva, B., & Woolliams, J. A.
Venue
Genetics
Published
2010-07-01
Volume
185
Issue
3
Pages
1021-1031
ISSN
  • 0016-6731 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2631
OpenAlex
W2102087753
Cited by
805
References
6
FWCI
20.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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 Architecture on Genome-Wide Evaluation Methods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1534/genetics.110.116855
The paper
Daetwyler, H. D., Pong-Wong, R., Villanueva, B., & Woolliams, J. A. (2010). The Impact of Genetic Architecture on Genome-Wide Evaluation Methods. Genetics. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.110.116855

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.