Literature DB >> 19299342

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

Shengqiang Zhong1, Jack C M Dekkers, Rohan L Fernando, Jean-Luc Jannink.   

Abstract

We compared the accuracies of four genomic-selection prediction methods as affected by marker density, level of linkage disequilibrium (LD), quantitative trait locus (QTL) number, sample size, and level of replication in populations generated from multiple inbred lines. Marker data on 42 two-row spring barley inbred lines were used to simulate high and low LD populations from multiple inbred line crosses: the first included many small full-sib families and the second was derived from five generations of random mating. True breeding values (TBV) were simulated on the basis of 20 or 80 additive QTL. Methods used to derive genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) were random regression best linear unbiased prediction (RR-BLUP), Bayes-B, a Bayesian shrinkage regression method, and BLUP from a mixed model analysis using a relationship matrix calculated from marker data. Using the best methods, accuracies of GEBV were comparable to accuracies from phenotype for predicting TBV without requiring the time and expense of field evaluation. We identified a trade-off between a method's ability to capture marker-QTL LD vs. marker-based relatedness of individuals. The Bayesian shrinkage regression method primarily captured LD, the BLUP methods captured relationships, while Bayes-B captured both. Under most of the study scenarios, mixed-model analysis using a marker-derived relationship matrix (BLUP) was more accurate than methods that directly estimated marker effects, suggesting that relationship information was more valuable than LD information. When markers were in strong LD with large-effect QTL, or when predictions were made on individuals several generations removed from the training data set, however, the ranking of method performance was reversed and BLUP had the lowest accuracy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19299342      PMCID: PMC2674832          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.108.098277

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genetics        ISSN: 0016-6731            Impact factor:   4.562


  19 in total

1.  Using molecular markers to estimate quantitative trait locus parameters: power and genetic variances for unreplicated and replicated progeny.

Authors:  S J Knapp; W C Bridges
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1990-11       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Extending Xu's Bayesian model for estimating polygenic effects using markers of the entire genome.

Authors:  Cajo J F ter Braak; Martin P Boer; Marco C A M Bink
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2005-05-23       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  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.

Authors:  M P L Calus; R F Veerkamp
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.380

4.  The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values.

Authors:  D Habier; R L Fernando; J C M Dekkers
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls.

Authors:  P M VanRaden; C P Van Tassell; G R Wiggans; T S Sonstegard; R D Schnabel; J F Taylor; F S Schenkel
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 4.034

6.  Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response.

Authors:  Mike Goddard
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2008-08-14       Impact factor: 1.082

7.  Efficiency of marker-assisted selection in the improvement of quantitative traits.

Authors:  R Lande; R Thompson
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Linkage disequilibrium in finite populations.

Authors:  W G Hill; A Robertson
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  1968-06       Impact factor: 5.699

9.  Estimating polygenic effects using markers of the entire genome.

Authors:  Shizhong Xu
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Recent history of artificial outcrossing facilitates whole-genome association mapping in elite inbred crop varieties.

Authors:  Nils Rostoks; Luke Ramsay; Katrin MacKenzie; Linda Cardle; Prasanna R Bhat; Mikeal L Roose; Jan T Svensson; Nils Stein; Rajeev K Varshney; David F Marshall; Andreas Graner; Timothy J Close; Robbie Waugh
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-11-03       Impact factor: 11.205

View more
  138 in total

1.  Accuracy of genomic selection in European maize elite breeding populations.

Authors:  Yusheng Zhao; Manje Gowda; Wenxin Liu; Tobias Würschum; Hans P Maurer; Friedrich H Longin; Nicolas Ranc; Jochen C Reif
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2011-11-11       Impact factor: 5.699

2.  Genomic prediction of hybrid performance in maize with models incorporating dominance and population specific marker effects.

Authors:  Frank Technow; Christian Riedelsheimer; Tobias A Schrag; Albrecht E Melchinger
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2012-06-26       Impact factor: 5.699

3.  Reanalyses of the historical series of UK variety trials to quantify the contributions of genetic and environmental factors to trends and variability in yield over time.

Authors:  I Mackay; A Horwell; J Garner; J White; J McKee; H Philpott
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2010-09-11       Impact factor: 5.699

4.  The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods.

Authors:  Hans D Daetwyler; Ricardo Pong-Wong; Beatriz Villanueva; John A Woolliams
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 5.  Genomic approaches to selection in outcrossing perennials: focus on essential oil crops.

Authors:  David Kainer; Robert Lanfear; William J Foley; Carsten Külheim
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2015-08-04       Impact factor: 5.699

6.  Genomic selection in a commercial winter wheat population.

Authors:  Sang He; Albert Wilhelm Schulthess; Vilson Mirdita; Yusheng Zhao; Viktor Korzun; Reiner Bothe; Erhard Ebmeyer; Jochen C Reif; Yong Jiang
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2016-01-08       Impact factor: 5.699

7.  An Equation to Predict the Accuracy of Genomic Values by Combining Data from Multiple Traits, Populations, or Environments.

Authors:  Yvonne C J Wientjes; Piter Bijma; Roel F Veerkamp; Mario P L Calus
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-12-04       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Selfing for the design of genomic selection experiments in biparental plant populations.

Authors:  Benjamin McClosky; Jason LaCombe; Steven D Tanksley
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2013-08-27       Impact factor: 5.699

9.  Genome properties and prospects of genomic prediction of hybrid performance in a breeding program of maize.

Authors:  Frank Technow; Tobias A Schrag; Wolfgang Schipprack; Eva Bauer; Henner Simianer; Albrecht E Melchinger
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 10.  Predicting genetic predisposition in humans: the promise of whole-genome markers.

Authors:  Gustavo de los Campos; Daniel Gianola; David B Allison
Journal:  Nat Rev Genet       Date:  2010-11-03       Impact factor: 53.242

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.