Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 300

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 23 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of inbreeding depression in Holstein cattle using whole-genome SNP markers and alternative measures of genomic inbreeding

Open access
Bjelland, D.W., Weigel, K.A., Vukasinovic, N., Nkrumah, J.D.·2013·Journal of Dairy Science

Abstract

The effects of increased pedigree inbreeding in dairy cattle populations have been well documented and result in a negative impact on profitability. Recent advances in genotyping technology have allowed researchers to move beyond pedigree analysis and study inbreeding at a molecular level. In this study, 5,853 animals were genotyped for 54,001 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP); 2,913 cows had phenotypic records including a single lactation for milk yield (from either lactation 1, 2, 3, or 4), reproductive performance, and linear type conformation. After removing SNP with poor call rates, low minor allele frequencies, and departure from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, 33,025 SNP remained for analyses. Three measures of genomic inbreeding were evaluated: percent homozygosity (FPH), inbreeding calculated from runs of homozygosity (FROH), and inbreeding derived from a genomic relationship matrix (FGRM). Average FPH was 60.5±1.1%, average FROH was 3.8±2.1%, and average FGRM was 20.8±2.3%, where animals with larger values for each of the genomic inbreeding indices were considered more inbred. Decreases in total milk yield to 205d postpartum of 53, 20, and 47kg per 1% increase in FPH, FROH, and FGRM, respectively, were observed. Increases in days open per 1% increase in FPH (1.76 d), FROH (1.72 d), and FGRM (1.06 d) were also noted, as well as increases in maternal calving difficulty (0.09, 0.03, and 0.04 on a 5-point scale for FPH, FROH, and FGRM, respectively). Several linear type traits, such as strength (-0.40, -0.11, and -0.19), rear legs rear view (-0.35, -0.16, and -0.14), front teat placement (0.35, 0.25, 0.18), and teat length (-0.24, -0.14, and -0.13) were also affected by increases in FPH, FROH, and FGRM, respectively. Overall, increases in each measure of genomic inbreeding in this study were associated with negative effects on production and reproductive ability in dairy cows.

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 · 10.3168/jds.2012-6435

Cites

23 of 23 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 23 references

Metadata

Authors
Bjelland, D. W., Weigel, K. A., Vukasinovic, N., & Nkrumah, J. D.
Venue
Journal of Dairy Science
Published
2013-07
Volume
96
Issue
7
Pages
4697-4706
ISSN
0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057751649
Cited by
300
References
23
FWCI
7.49
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: Evaluation of inbreeding depression in Holstein cattle using whole-genome SNP markers and alternative measures of genomic inbreeding. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3168/jds.2012-6435
The paper
Bjelland, D. W., Weigel, K. A., Vukasinovic, N., & Nkrumah, J. D. (2013). Evaluation of inbreeding depression in Holstein cattle using whole-genome SNP markers and alternative measures of genomic inbreeding. Journal of Dairy Science. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2012-6435

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.