|
|
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA Las Brujas. |
Fecha : |
11/12/2018 |
Actualizado : |
06/02/2019 |
Tipo de producción científica : |
Artículos en Revistas Indexadas Internacionales |
Autor : |
MOTA, R. R.; LOPES, P. S.; TEMPELMAN, R. J.; SILVA, F. F.; AGUILAR, I.; GOMES, C. C. G.; CARDOSO, F. F. |
Afiliación : |
R. R. MOTA, Animal Science Department, Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil; P. S. LOPES, Animal Science Department, Federal University of Viçosa, Viçosa, Brazil; R. J. TEMPELMAN, Animal Science Department, Michigan State University, United States; F. F. SILVA, Animal Science Department, Federal University of Viçosa, Brazil; IGNACIO AGUILAR GARCIA, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; C. C. G. GOMES, Embrapa South Livestock, Brazil; F. F. CARDOSO, eAnimal Science Department, Federal University of Pelotas, Brazil. |
Título : |
Genome-enabled prediction for tick resistance in Hereford and Braford beef cattle via reaction norm models. |
Fecha de publicación : |
2016 |
Fuente / Imprenta : |
Journal of Animal Science, May 2016, Volume 94, Issue 5, Pages 1834 - 1843. |
ISSN : |
0021-8812 |
DOI : |
10.2527/jas.2015-0194 |
Idioma : |
Inglés |
Notas : |
Article history: Received December 11, 2015. // Accepted March 10, 2016. |
Contenido : |
ABSTRACT.
Very few studies have been conducted to infer genotype × environment interaction (G×E) based in genomic prediction models using SNP markers. Therefore, our main objective was to compare a conventional genomic-based single-step model (HBLUP) with its reaction norm model extension (genomic 1-step linear reaction norm model [HLRNM]) to provide EBV for tick resistance as well as to compare predictive performance of these models with counterpart models that ignore SNP marker information, that is, a linear animal model (ABLUP) and its reaction norm extension (1-step linear reaction norm model [ALRNM]). Phenotypes included 10,673 tick counts on 4,363 Hereford and Braford animals, of which 3,591 were genotyped. Using the deviance information criterion for model choice, ABLUP and HBLUP seemed to be poorer fitting in comparison with their respective genomic model extensions. The HLRNM estimated lower average and reaction norm genetic variability compared with the ALRNM, whereas ABLUP and HBLUP seemed to be poorer fitting in comparison with their respective genomic reaction norm model extensions. Heritability and repeatability estimates varied along the environmental gradient (EG) and the genetic correlations were remarkably low between high and low EG, indicating the presence of G×E for tick resistance in these populations. Based on 5-fold K-means partitioning, mean cross-validation estimates with their respective SE of predictive accuracy were 0.66 (SE 0.02), 0.67 (SE 0.02), 0.67 (SE 0.02), and 0.66 (SE 0.02) for ABLUP, HBLUP, HLRNM, and ALRNM, respectively. For 5-fold random partitioning, HLRNM (0.71 ± 0.01) was statistically different from ABLUP (0.67 ± 0.01). However, no statistical significance was reported when considering HBLUP (0.70 ± 0.01) and ALRNM (0.70 ± 0.01). Our results suggest that SNP marker information does not lead to higher prediction accuracies in reaction norm models. Furthermore, these accuracies decreased as the tick infestation level increased and as the relationship between animals in training and validation data sets decreased.
© 2016 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. MenosABSTRACT.
Very few studies have been conducted to infer genotype × environment interaction (G×E) based in genomic prediction models using SNP markers. Therefore, our main objective was to compare a conventional genomic-based single-step model (HBLUP) with its reaction norm model extension (genomic 1-step linear reaction norm model [HLRNM]) to provide EBV for tick resistance as well as to compare predictive performance of these models with counterpart models that ignore SNP marker information, that is, a linear animal model (ABLUP) and its reaction norm extension (1-step linear reaction norm model [ALRNM]). Phenotypes included 10,673 tick counts on 4,363 Hereford and Braford animals, of which 3,591 were genotyped. Using the deviance information criterion for model choice, ABLUP and HBLUP seemed to be poorer fitting in comparison with their respective genomic model extensions. The HLRNM estimated lower average and reaction norm genetic variability compared with the ALRNM, whereas ABLUP and HBLUP seemed to be poorer fitting in comparison with their respective genomic reaction norm model extensions. Heritability and repeatability estimates varied along the environmental gradient (EG) and the genetic correlations were remarkably low between high and low EG, indicating the presence of G×E for tick resistance in these populations. Based on 5-fold K-means partitioning, mean cross-validation estimates with their respective SE of predictive accuracy were 0.66 (SE 0.02), 0.67 (SE 0.02)... Presentar Todo |
Palabras claves : |
ACCURACY; CROSS-VALIDATION; GENETIC CORRELATION; HERITABILITY. |
Asunto categoría : |
-- |
URL : |
http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/digital/bitstream/item/12162/1/mota2016.pdf
|
Marc : |
LEADER 03053naa a2200277 a 4500 001 1059370 005 2019-02-06 008 2016 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d 022 $a0021-8812 024 7 $a10.2527/jas.2015-0194$2DOI 100 1 $aMOTA, R. R. 245 $aGenome-enabled prediction for tick resistance in Hereford and Braford beef cattle via reaction norm models.$h[electronic resource] 260 $c2016 500 $aArticle history: Received December 11, 2015. // Accepted March 10, 2016. 520 $aABSTRACT. Very few studies have been conducted to infer genotype × environment interaction (G×E) based in genomic prediction models using SNP markers. Therefore, our main objective was to compare a conventional genomic-based single-step model (HBLUP) with its reaction norm model extension (genomic 1-step linear reaction norm model [HLRNM]) to provide EBV for tick resistance as well as to compare predictive performance of these models with counterpart models that ignore SNP marker information, that is, a linear animal model (ABLUP) and its reaction norm extension (1-step linear reaction norm model [ALRNM]). Phenotypes included 10,673 tick counts on 4,363 Hereford and Braford animals, of which 3,591 were genotyped. Using the deviance information criterion for model choice, ABLUP and HBLUP seemed to be poorer fitting in comparison with their respective genomic model extensions. The HLRNM estimated lower average and reaction norm genetic variability compared with the ALRNM, whereas ABLUP and HBLUP seemed to be poorer fitting in comparison with their respective genomic reaction norm model extensions. Heritability and repeatability estimates varied along the environmental gradient (EG) and the genetic correlations were remarkably low between high and low EG, indicating the presence of G×E for tick resistance in these populations. Based on 5-fold K-means partitioning, mean cross-validation estimates with their respective SE of predictive accuracy were 0.66 (SE 0.02), 0.67 (SE 0.02), 0.67 (SE 0.02), and 0.66 (SE 0.02) for ABLUP, HBLUP, HLRNM, and ALRNM, respectively. For 5-fold random partitioning, HLRNM (0.71 ± 0.01) was statistically different from ABLUP (0.67 ± 0.01). However, no statistical significance was reported when considering HBLUP (0.70 ± 0.01) and ALRNM (0.70 ± 0.01). Our results suggest that SNP marker information does not lead to higher prediction accuracies in reaction norm models. Furthermore, these accuracies decreased as the tick infestation level increased and as the relationship between animals in training and validation data sets decreased. © 2016 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved. 653 $aACCURACY 653 $aCROSS-VALIDATION 653 $aGENETIC CORRELATION 653 $aHERITABILITY 700 1 $aLOPES, P. S. 700 1 $aTEMPELMAN, R. J. 700 1 $aSILVA, F. F. 700 1 $aAGUILAR, I. 700 1 $aGOMES, C. C. G. 700 1 $aCARDOSO, F. F. 773 $tJournal of Animal Science, May 2016, Volume 94, Issue 5, Pages 1834 - 1843.
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
Registro original : |
INIA Las Brujas (LB) |
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
|
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA Las Brujas. |
Fecha actual : |
02/03/2018 |
Actualizado : |
02/03/2018 |
Tipo de producción científica : |
Informes Agroclimáticos |
Autor : |
GIMÉNEZ, A.; CAL, A.; TISCORNIA, G.; SCHIAVI, C. |
Afiliación : |
AGUSTIN EDUARDO GIMÉNEZ FUREST, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; ADRIAN TABARE CAL ALVAREZ, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; GUADALUPE TISCORNIA TOSAR, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; CARLOS IGNACIO SCHIAVI RAMPELBERG, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay. |
Título : |
Informe agroclimático 2018 - Situación a Febrero. |
Fecha de publicación : |
2018 |
Fuente / Imprenta : |
Montevideo (Uruguay): INIA, 2018. |
Páginas : |
4 p. |
Serie : |
(Informe Agroclimático; 142) |
Idioma : |
Español |
Palabras claves : |
AGROCLIMA; AGROCLIMATOLOGÍA; BOLETIN AGROCLIMÁTICO; CARACTERIZACIÓN AGROCLIMÁTICA; DIRECCION VIENTO; ESTACIONES AGROMETEOROLOGICAS; ESTACIONES AUTOMATICAS; ESTACIONES INIA; ESTADO DEL TIEMPO; ESTRÉS HÍDRICO; GRAFICAS AGROCLIMATICOS; GRAS; HELIOFANOGRAFO; INFORMACION SATELITAL; INFORME AGROCLIMÁTICO 2018; INUNDACIONES; LLUVIAS DIARIAS; MAXIMA; MEDIA; MINIMA; PANEL SOLAR; PERSPECTIVAS CLIMATICAS; PLUVIOMETRO; PRECIPITACION NACIONAL; PREVENCION HELADAS; PRONOSTICO; SENSOR; SIMETRICO; TANQUE A; TERMOCUPLAS; TERMOHIDROGRAFO; VARIABLES AGROCLIMATICAS; VELETA. |
Thesagro : |
AGROCLIMATOLOGIA; CAMBIO CLIMATICO; CLIMA; CLIMATOLOGIA; ESTACIONES METEOROLOGICAS; ESTRES HIDRICO; EVAPORACION; EVAPOTRANSPIRACION; HUMEDAD; HUMEDAD RELATIVA; LLUVIA; METEOROLOGIA; PERSPECTIVAS; PLUVIOMETROS; PRONOSTICO DEL TIEMPO; SENSORES; SISTEMAS; SISTEMAS DE INFORMACION; SUELO; TEMPERATURA; TERMOMETROS. |
Asunto categoría : |
P40 Meteorología y climatología |
URL : |
http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/digital/bitstream/item/8827/1/Informe-agroclimatico-INIA-GRAS-Febrero-de-2018.pdf
|
Marc : |
LEADER 02128nam a2200805 a 4500 001 1058185 005 2018-03-02 008 2018 bl uuuu u0uu1 u #d 100 1 $aGIMÉNEZ, A. 245 $aInforme agroclimático 2018 - Situación a Febrero.$h[electronic resource] 260 $aMontevideo (Uruguay): INIA$c2018 300 $a4 p. 490 $a(Informe Agroclimático; 142) 650 $aAGROCLIMATOLOGIA 650 $aCAMBIO CLIMATICO 650 $aCLIMA 650 $aCLIMATOLOGIA 650 $aESTACIONES METEOROLOGICAS 650 $aESTRES HIDRICO 650 $aEVAPORACION 650 $aEVAPOTRANSPIRACION 650 $aHUMEDAD 650 $aHUMEDAD RELATIVA 650 $aLLUVIA 650 $aMETEOROLOGIA 650 $aPERSPECTIVAS 650 $aPLUVIOMETROS 650 $aPRONOSTICO DEL TIEMPO 650 $aSENSORES 650 $aSISTEMAS 650 $aSISTEMAS DE INFORMACION 650 $aSUELO 650 $aTEMPERATURA 650 $aTERMOMETROS 653 $aAGROCLIMA 653 $aAGROCLIMATOLOGÍA 653 $aBOLETIN AGROCLIMÁTICO 653 $aCARACTERIZACIÓN AGROCLIMÁTICA 653 $aDIRECCION VIENTO 653 $aESTACIONES AGROMETEOROLOGICAS 653 $aESTACIONES AUTOMATICAS 653 $aESTACIONES INIA 653 $aESTADO DEL TIEMPO 653 $aESTRÉS HÍDRICO 653 $aGRAFICAS AGROCLIMATICOS 653 $aGRAS 653 $aHELIOFANOGRAFO 653 $aINFORMACION SATELITAL 653 $aINFORME AGROCLIMÁTICO 2018 653 $aINUNDACIONES 653 $aLLUVIAS DIARIAS 653 $aMAXIMA 653 $aMEDIA 653 $aMINIMA 653 $aPANEL SOLAR 653 $aPERSPECTIVAS CLIMATICAS 653 $aPLUVIOMETRO 653 $aPRECIPITACION NACIONAL 653 $aPREVENCION HELADAS 653 $aPRONOSTICO 653 $aSENSOR 653 $aSIMETRICO 653 $aTANQUE A 653 $aTERMOCUPLAS 653 $aTERMOHIDROGRAFO 653 $aVARIABLES AGROCLIMATICAS 653 $aVELETA 700 1 $aCAL, A. 700 1 $aTISCORNIA, G. 700 1 $aSCHIAVI, C.
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
Registro original : |
INIA Las Brujas (LB) |
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
Expresión de búsqueda válido. Check! |
|
|