Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 260

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Genomic prediction of simulated multibreed and purebred performance using observed fifty thousand single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes1

Kizilkaya, K., Fernando, R. L., Garrick, D. J.·2010·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

Genomic prediction involves characterization of chromosome fragments in a training population to predict merit. Confidence in the predictions relies on their evaluation in a validation population. Many commercial animals are multibreed (MB) or crossbred, but seedstock populations tend to be purebred (PB). Training in MB allows selection of PB for crossbred performance. Training in PB to predict MB performance quantifies the potential for across-breed genomic prediction. Efficiency of genomic selection was evaluated for a trait with heritability 0.5 simulated using actual SNP genotypes. The PB population had 1,086 Angus animals, and the MB population had 924 individuals from 8 sire breeds. Phenotypic values were simulated for scenarios including 50, 100, 250, or 500 additive QTL randomly selected from 50K SNP panels. Panels containing various numbers of SNP, including or excluding the QTL, were used in the analysis. A Bayesian model averaging method was used to simultaneously estimate the effects of all markers on the panels in MB (or PB) training populations. Estimated effects were utilized to predict genomic merit of animals in PB (or MB) validation populations. Correlations between predicted and simulated genomic merit in the validation population was used to reflect predictive ability. Panels that included QTL were able to account for 50% or more of the within-breed genetic variance when the trait was influenced by 50 QTL. The predictive power eroded as the number of QTL increased. Panels that composed the QTL and no other markers were able to account for 50% or more genetic variance even with 500 QTL. Panels that included genomic markers as well as QTL had less predictive power as the number of markers on the panel was increased. Panels that excluded the QTL and relied on markers in linkage disequilibrium (LD) to predict QTL effects performed more poorly than marker panels with QTL. Real-life situations with 50K panels that excluded the QTL could account for no more than 20% genetic variation for 50 QTL and less than 10% for 500 QTL. The difference between panels that included and excluded QTL indicates that the predictive ability of existing panels is limited by their LD. Training in PB to predict MB tended to be more predictive than training in MB to predict PB due to greater average levels of LD in PB than in MB populations. Improved across breed prediction of genomic merit will require panels with more than 50,000 markers.

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 · 10.2527/jas.2009-2064

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.

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

Cited by

See all 260

Metadata

Authors
Kizilkaya, K., Fernando, R. L., & Garrick, D. J.
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2010-02-01
Volume
88
Issue
2
Pages
544-551
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W2126946018
Cited by
260
References
0
FWCI
8.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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 prediction of simulated multibreed and purebred performance using observed fifty thousand single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2527/jas.2009-2064
The paper
Kizilkaya, K., Fernando, R. L., & Garrick, D. J. (2010). Genomic prediction of simulated multibreed and purebred performance using observed fifty thousand single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes1. Journal of Animal Science. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2009-2064

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.