Discover Community Create You

Loading publication...

Noodle always counts identifier-free feature events for service operation. With your permission, Google Analytics can also estimate audience and engagement. Search text, publication identifiers, cookies, IP addresses and browser fingerprints are never included in Noodle's first-party event counters.

Privacy details

Article

Impact of genotype imputation on the performance of GBLUP and Bayesian methods for genomic prediction.

PloS one - 1 Jan 2014

Chen Liuhong, Li Changxi, Sargolzaei Mehdi, Schenkel Flavio

Abstract excerpt

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of genotype imputation on the performance of the GBLUP and Bayesian methods for genomic prediction. A total of 10,309 Holstein bulls were genotyped on the BovineSNP50 BeadChip (50 k). Five low density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) panels, containing 6,177, 2,480, 1,536, 768 and 384 SNPs, were simulated from the 50 k panel. A fraction of 0%, 33% and 66% of...

Read the complete abstract on PubMed

Topics

Share this publication in a Topic to start or enrich a Post.

Share to Algorithms
Share to Bayes Theorem
Share to Cattle

Methodology Data sources Editorial policy Privacy Delete account & data About Contact Helena Bioinformatics

Share to Evolution, Molecular

Share to Genomics

Share to Quantitative Trait, Heritable

Share to Quantitative Trait Loci

Share to Reproducibility of Results

Source

Open in PubMed Open full text

Identifiers

PMID: 25025158
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101544
PMCID: PMC4099124

Provenance

PubMed metadata and Literature Corpus relationships. Corpus snapshot updated 7 Sept 2026. Manifest publication-graph-cohort-2026-09-08.1.

Source receipt: pubmed, retrieved 7 Sept 2026.

Related research

Semantic proximity does not establish scientific evidence. Graph snapshot: 2026-09-29.

Research trail→

Click a neighbor to travelStep 1 · 12 closest

Impact of genotype imputation on the performance of GBLUP and Bayesian methods for genomic prediction.PMID 25025158Read ↗

Imputation of genotypes with low-density chips and its effect on reliability of direct genomic values in Dutch Holstein cattle.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Strategies and utility of imputed SNP genotypes for genomic analysis in dairy cattle.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Reliability of genomic prediction for German Holsteins using imputed genotypes from low-density chips.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Comparison of genomic predictions using genomic relationship matrices built with different weighting factors to account for locus-specific variances.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Simultaneous fitting of genomic-BLUP and Bayes-C components in a genomic prediction model.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Genomic relationships based on X chromosome markers and accuracy of genomic predictions with and without X chromosome markers.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Strategies for single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping to enhance genotype imputation in Gyr (Bos indicus) dairy cattle: Comparison of commercially available SNP chips.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Accuracy of prediction of simulated polygenic phenotypes and their underlying quantitative trait loci genotypes using real or imputed whole-genome markers in cattle.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Accuracy of genomic prediction using low-density marker panels.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Comparing strategies for selection of low-density SNPs for imputation-mediated genomic prediction in U. S. Holsteins.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Model comparison on genomic predictions using high-density markers for different groups of bulls in the Nordic Holstein population.Semantic proximity Read ↗

Comparison of genomic predictions using medium-density (∼54,000) and high-density (∼777,000) single nucleotide polymorphism marker panels in Nordic Holstein and Red Dairy Cattle populations.Semantic proximity Read ↗

⌁Select a neighboring publication to make it the new centre.