The world's first wiki where authorship really matters (Nature Genetics, 2008). Due credit and reputation for authors. Imagine a global collaborative knowledge base for original thoughts. Search thousands of articles and collaborate with scientists around the globe.

wikigene or wiki gene protein drug chemical gene disease author authorship tracking collaborative publishing evolutionary knowledge reputation system wiki2.0 global collaboration genes proteins drugs chemicals diseases compound
Hoffmann, R. A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters. Nature Genetics (2008)

Effects of errors in pedigree on three methods of estimating breeding value for litter size, backfat and average daily gain in swine.

Estimated breeding value (EBV) was calculated based on either individual phenotype (SP), an index of individual phenotype and full- and half-sib family averages (SI) or Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (BLUP). Calculations were done with correct data or data with 5, 10, 15 or 20% of the records per generation containing pedigree errors. Traits considered were litter size ( LS), backfat ( BF) and average daily gain (ADG). When data were correct, BLUP resulted in an advantage in expected genetic gain over SP of 22, 7.2 or 30.8% for LS, BF and ADG, respectively, and over SI of 9.6, 3.8 or 21.4%. When sire and dam pedigrees were incorrect for 20% of the pigs each generation, genetic gain using SI was reduced by 7, 2.5 or 6.5% and genetic gain using BLUP was reduced by 9.3, 3.2 or 12.4% for LS, BF and ADG, respectively. With 20% of the pedigrees in error, the advantages in genetic gain of using BLUP over SP, the method unaffected by errors in pedigree, were 10.5, 3.8 and 14.6% for LS, BF and ADG, respectively. These results suggest that, although BLUP is affected to a greater degree by pedigree errors than SP or SI, selection of swine using BLUP still would improve response to selection over the use of SP or SI.[1]


WikiGenes - Universities