Literature DB >> 18076473

Accuracy of breeding values when using and ignoring the polygenic effect in genomic breeding value estimation with a marker density of one SNP per cM.

M P L Calus1, R F Veerkamp.   

Abstract

Genomic selection is based on breeding values that are estimated using genome-wide dense marker maps. The objective of this paper was to investigate the effect of including or ignoring the polygenic effect on the accuracy of total genomic breeding values, when there is coverage of the genome with approximately one SNP per cM. The importance of the polygenic effect might differ for high and low heritability traits, and might depend on the design of the reference dataset. Hence, different scenarios were evaluated using stochastic simulation. Accuracies of the total breeding value of juvenile selection candidates depended on the number of animals included in the reference data. When excluding polygenic effects, those accuracies ranged from 0.38 to 0.55 and from 0.73 to 0.79 for traits with heritabilities of 10 and 50%, respectively. Accuracies were improved by including a polygenic effect in the model for the low heritability trait, when the LD-measure r2 between adjacent markers became smaller than approximately 0.10, while for the high heritability trait there was already a small improvement at r2 between adjacent markers of 0.14. In all situations, the estimated total genetic variance was underestimated, particularly when the polygenic effect was excluded from the model. The haplotype variance was less underestimated when more animals were added in the reference dataset.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 18076473     DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2007.00691.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet        ISSN: 0931-2668            Impact factor:   2.380


  35 in total

1.  Sensitivity of genomic selection to using different prior distributions.

Authors:  Klara L Verbyla; Philip J Bowman; Ben J Hayes; Michael E Goddard
Journal:  BMC Proc       Date:  2010-03-31

2.  Back to basics for Bayesian model building in genomic selection.

Authors:  Hanni P Kärkkäinen; Mikko J Sillanpää
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Comparisons of single-stage and two-stage approaches to genomic selection.

Authors:  Torben Schulz-Streeck; Joseph O Ogutu; Hans-Peter Piepho
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2012-08-19       Impact factor: 5.699

4.  Genomic BLUP decoded: a look into the black box of genomic prediction.

Authors:  David Habier; Rohan L Fernando; Dorian J Garrick
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-05-02       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a Barley case study.

Authors:  Shengqiang Zhong; Jack C M Dekkers; Rohan L Fernando; Jean-Luc Jannink
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Sensitivity of methods for estimating breeding values using genetic markers to the number of QTL and distribution of QTL variance.

Authors:  Albart Coster; John W M Bastiaansen; Mario P L Calus; Johan A M van Arendonk; Henk Bovenhuis
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2010-03-22       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  The accuracy of Genomic Selection in Norwegian red cattle assessed by cross-validation.

Authors:  Tu Luan; John A Woolliams; Sigbjørn Lien; Matthew Kent; Morten Svendsen; Theo H E Meuwissen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-08-24       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Haplotype inference in crossbred populations without pedigree information.

Authors:  Albart Coster; Henri C M Heuven; Rohan L Fernando; Jack C M Dekkers
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Persistence of accuracy of genome-wide breeding values over generations when including a polygenic effect.

Authors:  Trygve R Solberg; Anna K Sonesson; John A Woolliams; Jørgen Odegard; Theo H E Meuwissen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped.

Authors:  Ole F Christensen; Mogens S Lund
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.