Literature DB >> 18407980

Genomic selection using different marker types and densities.

T R Solberg1, A K Sonesson, J A Woolliams, T H E Meuwissen.   

Abstract

With the availability of high-density marker maps and cost-effective genotyping, genomic selection methods may provide faster genetic gain than can be achieved by current selection methods based on phenotypes and the pedigree. Here we investigate some of the factors driving the accuracy of genomic selection, namely marker density and marker type (i.e., microsatellite and SNP markers), and the use of marker haplotypes versus marker genotypes alone. Different densities were tested with marker densities equivalent to 2, 1, 0.5, and 0.25N(e) markers/morgan using microsatellites and 8, 4, 2, and 1N(e) markers/morgan using SNP, where 1N(e) markers/morgan means 100 markers per morgan, if effective size (N(e)) is 100. Marker characteristics and linkage disequilibria were obtained by simulating a population over 1,000 generations to achieve a mutation drift balance. The marker designs were evaluated for their accuracy of predicting breeding values from either estimating marker effects or estimating effects of haplotypes based upon combining 2 markers. Using microsatellites as direct marker effects, the accuracy of selection increased from 0.63 to 0.83 as the density increased from 0.25N(e)/morgan to 2N(e)/morgan. Using SNP markers as direct marker effects, the accuracy of selection increased from 0.69 to 0.86 as the density increased from 1N(e)/morgan to 8N(e)/morgan. The SNP markers required a 2 to 3 times greater density compared with using microsatellites to achieve a similar accuracy. The biases that genomic selection EBV often show are due to the prediction of marker effects instead of QTL effects, and hence, genomic selection EBV may need rescaling for practical use. Using haplotypes resulted in similar or reduced accuracies compared with using direct marker effects. In practical situations, this means that it is advantageous to use direct marker effects, because this avoids the estimation of marker phases with the associated errors. In general, the results showed that the accuracy remained responsive with small bias to increasing marker density at least up to 8N(e) SNP/morgan, where the effective population size was 100 and with the genomic model assumed. For a 30-morgan genome and N(e) = 100, this implies that about approximately 24,000 SNP are needed.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18407980     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2007-0010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  75 in total

1.  Accuracy of Genomic Prediction in Synthetic Populations Depending on the Number of Parents, Relatedness, and Ancestral Linkage Disequilibrium.

Authors:  Pascal Schopp; Dominik Müller; Frank Technow; Albrecht E Melchinger
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-11-09       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Long-term impacts of genome-enabled selection.

Authors:  Nanye Long; Daniel Gianola; Guilherme J M Rosa; Kent A Weigel
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Genomic selection prediction accuracy in a perennial crop: case study of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.).

Authors:  David Cros; Marie Denis; Leopoldo Sánchez; Benoit Cochard; Albert Flori; Tristan Durand-Gasselin; Bruno Nouy; Alphonse Omoré; Virginie Pomiès; Virginie Riou; Edyana Suryana; Jean-Marc Bouvet
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2014-12-07       Impact factor: 5.699

4.  Testing strategies for genomic selection in aquaculture breeding programs.

Authors:  Anna K Sonesson; Theo H E Meuwissen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-06-30       Impact factor: 4.297

5.  Comparison of methods for estimation of genetic covariance matrix from SNP or pedigree data utilised to predict breeding value.

Authors:  Sebastian Mucha; Anna Wolc; Tomasz Strabel
Journal:  BMC Proc       Date:  2010-03-31

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.  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

8.  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

9.  EM algorithm for Bayesian estimation of genomic breeding values.

Authors:  Takeshi Hayashi; Hiroyoshi Iwata
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 2.797

10.  Accuracy of breeding values of 'unrelated' individuals predicted by dense SNP genotyping.

Authors:  Theo H E Meuwissen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-06-11       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.