Literature DB >> 19822733

Reliability of genomic predictions across multiple populations.

A P W de Roos1, B J Hayes, M E Goddard.   

Abstract

Genomic prediction of future phenotypes or genetic merit using dense SNP genotypes can be used for prediction of disease risk, forensics, and genomic selection of livestock and domesticated plant species. The reliability of genomic predictions is their squared correlation with the true genetic merit and indicates the proportion of the genetic variance that is explained. As reliability relies heavily on the number of phenotypes, combining data sets from multiple populations may be attractive as a way to increase reliabilities, particularly when phenotypes are scarce. However, this strategy may also decrease reliabilities if the marker effects are very different between the populations. The effect of combining multiple populations on the reliability of genomic predictions was assessed for two simulated cattle populations, A and B, that had diverged for T = 6, 30, or 300 generations. The training set comprised phenotypes of 1000 individuals from population A and 0, 300, 600, or 1000 individuals from population B, while marker density and trait heritability were varied. Adding individuals from population B to the training set increased the reliability in population A by up to 0.12 when the marker density was high and T = 6, whereas it decreased the reliability in population A by up to 0.07 when the marker density was low and T = 300. Without individuals from population B in the training set, the reliability in population B was up to 0.77 lower than in population A, especially for large T. Adding individuals from population B to the training set increased the reliability in population B to close to the same level as in population A when the marker density was sufficiently high for the marker-QTL linkage disequilibrium to persist across populations. Our results suggest that the most accurate genomic predictions are achieved when phenotypes from all populations are combined in one training set, while for more diverged populations a higher marker density is required.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19822733      PMCID: PMC2787438          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.109.104935

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


  29 in total

1.  Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans.

Authors:  M W Nachman; S L Crowell
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Extent and consistency across generations of linkage disequilibrium in commercial layer chicken breeding populations.

Authors:  E M Heifetz; J E Fulton; N O'Sullivan; H Zhao; J C M Dekkers; M Soller
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2005-08-22       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Accuracy of genomic selection using different methods to define haplotypes.

Authors:  M P L Calus; T H E Meuwissen; A P W de Roos; R F Veerkamp
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Prediction of individual genetic risk to disease from genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Naomi R Wray; Michael E Goddard; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2007-09-04       Impact factor: 9.043

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.  Linkage disequilibrium and persistence of phase in Holstein-Friesian, Jersey and Angus cattle.

Authors:  A P W de Roos; B J Hayes; R J Spelman; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-07-13       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Mapping multiple QTL using linkage disequilibrium and linkage analysis information and multitrait data.

Authors:  Theo H E Meuwissen; Mike E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2004 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.297

Review 8.  Characterizing linkage disequilibrium in pig populations.

Authors:  Feng-Xing Du; Archie C Clutter; Michael M Lohuis
Journal:  Int J Biol Sci       Date:  2007-02-10       Impact factor: 6.580

9.  Whole genome linkage disequilibrium maps in cattle.

Authors:  Stephanie D McKay; Robert D Schnabel; Brenda M Murdoch; Lakshmi K Matukumalli; Jan Aerts; Wouter Coppieters; Denny Crews; Emmanuel Dias Neto; Clare A Gill; Chuan Gao; Hideyuki Mannen; Paul Stothard; Zhiquan Wang; Curt P Van Tassell; John L Williams; Jeremy F Taylor; Stephen S Moore
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2007-10-25       Impact factor: 2.797

10.  Simultaneous analysis of all SNPs in genome-wide and re-sequencing association studies.

Authors:  Clive J Hoggart; John C Whittaker; Maria De Iorio; David J Balding
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2008-07-25       Impact factor: 5.917

View more
  104 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.  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

3.  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

4.  Evaluating Sequence-Based Genomic Prediction with an Efficient New Simulator.

Authors:  Miguel Pérez-Enciso; Natalia Forneris; Gustavo de Los Campos; Andrés Legarra
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-12-02       Impact factor: 4.562

Review 5.  Genomic prediction in animals and plants: simulation of data, validation, reporting, and benchmarking.

Authors:  Hans D Daetwyler; Mario P L Calus; Ricardo Pong-Wong; Gustavo de Los Campos; John M Hickey
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  The effect of linkage disequilibrium and family relationships on the reliability of genomic prediction.

Authors:  Yvonne C J Wientjes; Roel F Veerkamp; Mario P L Calus
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-12-24       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Meuwissen et al. on Genomic Selection.

Authors:  Dirk-Jan de Koning
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-05       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Genomic Prediction for Quantitative Traits Is Improved by Mapping Variants to Gene Ontology Categories in Drosophila melanogaster.

Authors:  Stefan M Edwards; Izel F Sørensen; Pernille Sarup; Trudy F C Mackay; Peter Sørensen
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-05-27       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  Genomic predictability of interconnected biparental maize populations.

Authors:  Christian Riedelsheimer; Jeffrey B Endelman; Michael Stange; Mark E Sorrells; Jean-Luc Jannink; Albrecht E Melchinger
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations.

Authors:  Ben J Hayes; Phillip J Bowman; Amanda C Chamberlain; Klara Verbyla; Mike E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-11-24       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.