|
|
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA La Estanzuela; INIA Las Brujas. |
Fecha : |
24/09/2018 |
Actualizado : |
24/09/2018 |
Tipo de producción científica : |
Artículos en Revistas Agropecuarias |
Autor : |
GERMAN, S.; AZZIMONTI, G.; CASTRO, M.; GARCIA, R.; QUINCKE, M.; PEREYRA, S. |
Afiliación : |
SILVIA ELISA GERMAN FAEDO, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; GUSTAVO AZZIMONTI, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; MARINA CASTRO DERENYI, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; RICHARD ANSELMO GARCIA USUCA, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; MARTIN CONRADO QUINCKE WALDEN, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay; SILVIA ANTONIA PEREYRA CORREA, INIA (Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria), Uruguay. |
Título : |
ROYA ESTRIADA DE TRIGO: epidemia en 2017 asociada a la presencia de razas agresivas del patógeno y sus posibles consecuencias. |
Fecha de publicación : |
2018 |
Fuente / Imprenta : |
Revista INIA Uruguay, 2018, no. 54, p. 36-41. |
Serie : |
(Revista INIA; 54). |
ISSN : |
1510-9011 |
Idioma : |
Español |
Contenido : |
La roya estriada de trigo, también denominada roya amarilla, es causada por el patógeno Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici. |
Palabras claves : |
ENFERMEDAD EN SUDAMÉRICA; EPIDEMIOLOGÍA; POBLACIÓN DE PATÓGENO; ROYA ESTRIADA DE TRIGO. |
Thesagro : |
CULTIVOS DE INVIERNO; ENFERMEDADES DE LAS PLANTAS; EPIDEMIOLOGIA; ROYA; SINTOMAS; TRIGO; TRITICUM AESTIVUM. |
Asunto categoría : |
-- F01 Cultivo |
URL : |
http://www.ainfo.inia.uy/digital/bitstream/item/11263/1/revista-INIA-54-setiembre-2018.-p.36-41.pdf
|
Marc : |
LEADER 01086naa a2200337 a 4500 001 1059058 005 2018-09-24 008 2018 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d 022 $a1510-9011 100 1 $aGERMAN, S. 245 $aROYA ESTRIADA DE TRIGO$bepidemia en 2017 asociada a la presencia de razas agresivas del patógeno y sus posibles consecuencias. 260 $c2018 490 $a(Revista INIA; 54). 520 $aLa roya estriada de trigo, también denominada roya amarilla, es causada por el patógeno Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici. 650 $aCULTIVOS DE INVIERNO 650 $aENFERMEDADES DE LAS PLANTAS 650 $aEPIDEMIOLOGIA 650 $aROYA 650 $aSINTOMAS 650 $aTRIGO 650 $aTRITICUM AESTIVUM 653 $aENFERMEDAD EN SUDAMÉRICA 653 $aEPIDEMIOLOGÍA 653 $aPOBLACIÓN DE PATÓGENO 653 $aROYA ESTRIADA DE TRIGO 700 1 $aAZZIMONTI, G. 700 1 $aCASTRO, M. 700 1 $aGARCIA, R. 700 1 $aQUINCKE, M. 700 1 $aPEREYRA, S. 773 $tRevista INIA Uruguay, 2018, no. 54, p. 36-41.
Descargar
Esconder MarcPresentar Marc Completo |
Registro original : |
INIA Las Brujas (LB) |
|
Biblioteca
|
Identificación
|
Origen
|
Tipo / Formato
|
Clasificación
|
Cutter
|
Registro
|
Volumen
|
Estado
|
Volver
|
|
| Acceso al texto completo restringido a Biblioteca INIA Las Brujas. Por información adicional contacte bibliolb@inia.org.uy. |
Registro completo
|
Biblioteca (s) : |
INIA Las Brujas. |
Fecha actual : |
11/09/2014 |
Actualizado : |
30/10/2019 |
Tipo de producción científica : |
Artículos en Revistas Indexadas Internacionales |
Circulación / Nivel : |
A - 2 |
Autor : |
LOURENCO, D.A.L.; MISZTAL, I.; WANG, H.; AGUILAR, I.; TSURUTA, S.; BERTRAND, J.K. |
Afiliación : |
IGNACIO AGUILAR GARCIA, Instituto Nacional de Investigación Agropecuaria (INIA), Uruguay. |
Título : |
Prediction accuracy for a simulated maternally affected trait of beef cattle using different genomic evaluation models. |
Fecha de publicación : |
2013 |
Fuente / Imprenta : |
Journal of Animal Science, 2013, v.91, no.9, p.4090-4098. |
ISSN : |
0021-8812 |
DOI : |
10.2527/jas.2012-5826 |
Idioma : |
Inglés |
Notas : |
Article history: Published online July 26, 2013.
This study was partially funded by the American Angus Association (St. Joseph, MO) and the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (Grant no. 2009-65205-05665 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Animal Genome Program). Helpful comments and suggestions from W. M. Snelling (U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, ARS, USDA, Clay Center, NE) and two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. |
Contenido : |
ABSTRACT.
Different methods for genomic evaluation were compared for accuracy and feasibility of evaluation using phenotypic, pedigree, and genomic information for a trait influenced by a maternal effect. A simulated population was constructed that included 15,800 animals in 5 generations. Genotypes from 45,000 SNP were available for 1,500 animals in the last 3 generations. Genotyped animals in the last generation had no phenotypes. Weaning weight data were simulated using an animal model with direct and maternal effects. Additive direct and maternal effects were considered either noncorrelated (Graphic) or negatively correlated (Graphic). Methods of analysis were traditional BLUP, BayesC using phenotypes and ignoring maternal effects (BayesCPR), BayesC using deregressed EBV (BayesCDEBV), and single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP). Whereas BayesCPR can be used when phenotypes of only genotyped animals are available, BayesCDEBV can be used when BLUP EBV of genotyped animals are available, and ssGBLUP is suitable when genotypes, phenotypes, and pedigrees are jointly available. For all genotyped and young genotyped animals, mean accuracies from BayesCPR and BayesCDEBV were lower than accuracies from BLUP for direct and maternal effects. The differences in mean accuracy were greater when genetic correlation was negative. Gains in accuracy were observed when ssGBLUP was compared with BLUP; for the direct (maternal) effect the average gain was 0.01 (0.02) for all genotyped animals and 0.03 (0.02) for young genotyped animals without phenotypes. Similar gains were observed for 0 and negative genetic correlation. Accuracy with BayesCPR was affected by ignoring phenotypes of nongenotyped animals and maternal effect and by not accounting for parent average. Accuracy with BayesCDEBV was affected by approximations needed for deregression, not accounting for parent average, and sequential rather than simultaneous fitting of genomic and nongenomic information. Whereas BayesCDEBV presented a considerable bias, especially for maternal effect, ssGBLUP was unbiased for both effects. The computing time was 1 s for BLUP, 44 s for ssGBLUP, and over 2,000 s for BayesC. Greatest computational efficiency and accuracy of genomic prediction for a maternally affected trait was obtained when information from all nongenotyped but related individuals was included and phenotypes, pedigree, and genotypes were available and considered jointly. Increasing the gain in accuracy of genomic predictions obtained by ssGBLUP over BLUP may require an increase in the number of genotyped animals. MenosABSTRACT.
Different methods for genomic evaluation were compared for accuracy and feasibility of evaluation using phenotypic, pedigree, and genomic information for a trait influenced by a maternal effect. A simulated population was constructed that included 15,800 animals in 5 generations. Genotypes from 45,000 SNP were available for 1,500 animals in the last 3 generations. Genotyped animals in the last generation had no phenotypes. Weaning weight data were simulated using an animal model with direct and maternal effects. Additive direct and maternal effects were considered either noncorrelated (Graphic) or negatively correlated (Graphic). Methods of analysis were traditional BLUP, BayesC using phenotypes and ignoring maternal effects (BayesCPR), BayesC using deregressed EBV (BayesCDEBV), and single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP). Whereas BayesCPR can be used when phenotypes of only genotyped animals are available, BayesCDEBV can be used when BLUP EBV of genotyped animals are available, and ssGBLUP is suitable when genotypes, phenotypes, and pedigrees are jointly available. For all genotyped and young genotyped animals, mean accuracies from BayesCPR and BayesCDEBV were lower than accuracies from BLUP for direct and maternal effects. The differences in mean accuracy were greater when genetic correlation was negative. Gains in accuracy were observed when ssGBLUP was compared with BLUP; for the direct (maternal) effect the average gain was 0.01 (0.02) for all genotyped animals an... Presentar Todo |
Thesagro : |
GANADERÍA; GANADO DE CARNE; MEJORAMIENTO GENÉTICO ANIMAL; MODELOS DE SIMULACIÓN; SELECCIÓN GENÓMICA. |
Asunto categoría : |
L01 Ganadería |
Marc : |
LEADER 03895naa a2200277 a 4500 001 1050147 005 2019-10-30 008 2013 bl uuuu u00u1 u #d 022 $a0021-8812 024 7 $a10.2527/jas.2012-5826$2DOI 100 1 $aLOURENCO, D.A.L. 245 $aPrediction accuracy for a simulated maternally affected trait of beef cattle using different genomic evaluation models.$h[electronic resource] 260 $c2013 500 $aArticle history: Published online July 26, 2013. This study was partially funded by the American Angus Association (St. Joseph, MO) and the USDA Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (Grant no. 2009-65205-05665 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Animal Genome Program). Helpful comments and suggestions from W. M. Snelling (U.S. Meat Animal Research Center, ARS, USDA, Clay Center, NE) and two anonymous reviewers are gratefully acknowledged. 520 $aABSTRACT. Different methods for genomic evaluation were compared for accuracy and feasibility of evaluation using phenotypic, pedigree, and genomic information for a trait influenced by a maternal effect. A simulated population was constructed that included 15,800 animals in 5 generations. Genotypes from 45,000 SNP were available for 1,500 animals in the last 3 generations. Genotyped animals in the last generation had no phenotypes. Weaning weight data were simulated using an animal model with direct and maternal effects. Additive direct and maternal effects were considered either noncorrelated (Graphic) or negatively correlated (Graphic). Methods of analysis were traditional BLUP, BayesC using phenotypes and ignoring maternal effects (BayesCPR), BayesC using deregressed EBV (BayesCDEBV), and single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP). Whereas BayesCPR can be used when phenotypes of only genotyped animals are available, BayesCDEBV can be used when BLUP EBV of genotyped animals are available, and ssGBLUP is suitable when genotypes, phenotypes, and pedigrees are jointly available. For all genotyped and young genotyped animals, mean accuracies from BayesCPR and BayesCDEBV were lower than accuracies from BLUP for direct and maternal effects. The differences in mean accuracy were greater when genetic correlation was negative. Gains in accuracy were observed when ssGBLUP was compared with BLUP; for the direct (maternal) effect the average gain was 0.01 (0.02) for all genotyped animals and 0.03 (0.02) for young genotyped animals without phenotypes. Similar gains were observed for 0 and negative genetic correlation. Accuracy with BayesCPR was affected by ignoring phenotypes of nongenotyped animals and maternal effect and by not accounting for parent average. Accuracy with BayesCDEBV was affected by approximations needed for deregression, not accounting for parent average, and sequential rather than simultaneous fitting of genomic and nongenomic information. Whereas BayesCDEBV presented a considerable bias, especially for maternal effect, ssGBLUP was unbiased for both effects. The computing time was 1 s for BLUP, 44 s for ssGBLUP, and over 2,000 s for BayesC. Greatest computational efficiency and accuracy of genomic prediction for a maternally affected trait was obtained when information from all nongenotyped but related individuals was included and phenotypes, pedigree, and genotypes were available and considered jointly. Increasing the gain in accuracy of genomic predictions obtained by ssGBLUP over BLUP may require an increase in the number of genotyped animals. 650 $aGANADERÍA 650 $aGANADO DE CARNE 650 $aMEJORAMIENTO GENÉTICO ANIMAL 650 $aMODELOS DE SIMULACIÓN 650 $aSELECCIÓN GENÓMICA 700 1 $aMISZTAL, I. 700 1 $aWANG, H. 700 1 $aAGUILAR, I. 700 1 $aTSURUTA, S. 700 1 $aBERTRAND, J.K. 773 $tJournal of Animal Science, 2013$gv.91, no.9, p.4090-4098.
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! |
|
|