The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Genomic selection using different marker types and densities
Open accessAbstract
With the availability of high-density marker maps and cost-effective genotyping, genomic selection methods may provide faster genetic gain than can be achieved by current selection methods based on phenotypes and the pedigree. Here we investigate some of the factors driving the accuracy of genomic selection, namely marker density and marker type (i.e., microsatellite and SNP markers), and the use of marker haplotypes versus marker genotypes alone. Different densities were tested with marker densities equivalent to 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.25N(e) markers/morgan using microsatellites and 8, 4, 2, and 1N(e) markers/morgan using SNP, where 1N(e) markers/morgan means 100 markers per morgan, if effective size (N(e)) is 100. Marker characteristics and linkage disequilibria were obtained by simulating a population over 1,000 generations to achieve a mutation drift balance. The marker designs were evaluated for their accuracy of predicting breeding values from either estimating marker effects or estimating effects of haplotypes based upon combining 2 markers. Using microsatellites as direct marker effects, the accuracy of selection increased from 0.63 to 0.83 as the density increased from 0.25N(e)/morgan to 2N(e)/morgan. Using SNP markers as direct marker effects, the accuracy of selection increased from 0.69 to 0.86 as the density increased from 1N(e)/morgan to 8N(e)/morgan. The SNP markers required a 2 to 3 times greater density compared with using microsatellites to achieve a similar accuracy. The biases that genomic selection EBV often show are due to the prediction of marker effects instead of QTL effects, and hence, genomic selection EBV may need rescaling for practical use. Using haplotypes resulted in similar or reduced accuracies compared with using direct marker effects. In practical situations, this means that it is advantageous to use direct marker effects, because this avoids the estimation of marker phases with the associated errors. In general, the results showed that the accuracy remained responsive with small bias to increasing marker density at least up to 8N(e) SNP/morgan, where the effective population size was 100 and with the genomic model assumed. For a 30-morgan genome and N(e) = 100, this implies that about approximately 24,000 SNP are needed.
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
EVOLUTION IN MENDELIAN POPULATIONS
Wright, S. (1931) · Genetics · doi:10.1093/genetics/16.2.97 · Cited by 8,916
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
Self-citationGenetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits
(2002) · Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics · doi:10.1046/j.1439-0388.2002.00356.x · Cited by 6,092
Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits
Ewens, W. J. (1999) · American Journal of Human Biology · doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6300(199911/12)11:6<798::aid-ajhb12>3.0.co;2-a · Cited by 2,070
DNA marker technologies and their applications in aquaculture genetics
Liu, Z. J., & Cordes, J. F. (2004) · Aquaculture · doi:10.1016/j.aquaculture.2004.05.027 · Cited by 1,044
Likelihood, Bayesian, and MCMC Methods in Quantitative Genetics
Sorensen, D., & Gianola, D. (2002) · Statistics for Biology and Health · doi:10.1007/b98952 · Cited by 903
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
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
The distribution of the effects of genes affecting quantitative traits in livestock
Hayes, B., & Goddard, M. E. (2001) · Genetics Selection Evolution · doi:10.1051/gse:2001117 · Cited by 405
The use of marker haplotypes in animal breeding schemes
Meuwissen, T., & Goddard, M. (1996) · Genetics Selection Evolution · doi:10.1186/1297-9686-28-2-161 · Cited by 264
Self-citation
Cited by
Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice
Jannink, J.-L., Lorenz, A. J., & Iwata, H. (2010) · Briefings in Functional Genomics · doi:10.1093/bfgp/elq001 · Cited by 1,206
Genomic selection in forest tree breeding
Grattapaglia, D., & Resende, M. D. V. (2011) · Tree Genetics & Genomes · doi:10.1007/s11295-010-0328-4 · Cited by 417
Training set optimization under population structure in genomic selection
Isidro, J., Jannink, J.-L., Akdemir, D., Poland, J., Heslot, N., & Sorrells, M. E. (2015) · Theoretical and Applied Genetics · doi:10.1007/s00122-014-2418-4 · Cited by 381
Metadata
- Authors
- Solberg, T. R., Sonesson, A. K., Woolliams, J. A., & Meuwissen, T. H. E.
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-10-01
- Volume
- 86
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 2447-2454
- ISSN
- 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
- 1525-3163
- OpenAlex
- W2147295520
- Cited by
- 284
- References
- 11
- FWCI
- 10.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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: Genomic selection using different marker types and densities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/jas.2007-0010
- The paper
- Solberg, T. R., Sonesson, A. K., Woolliams, J. A., & Meuwissen, T. H. E. (2008). Genomic selection using different marker types and densities. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0010
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.