Literature DB >> 20630248

Implications of avoiding overlap between training and testing data sets when evaluating genomic predictions of genetic merit.

P R Amer1, G Banos.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate and quantify the importance of avoiding overlap between training and testing subsets of data when evaluating the effectiveness of predictions of genetic merit based on genetic markers. Genomic selection holds great potential for increasing the accuracy of selection in young bulls and is likely to lead quickly to more widespread use of these young bulls with a shorter generation interval and faster genetic improvement. Practical implementations of genomic selection in dairy cattle commonly involve results of national genetic evaluations being used as the dependent variable to evaluate the predictive ability of genetic markers. Selection index theory was used to demonstrate how ignoring correlations among errors of prediction between animals in training and testing sets could result in overestimates of accuracy of genomic predictions. Correlations among errors of prediction occur when estimates of genetic merit of training animals used in prediction are taken from the same genetic evaluation as estimates for validation of animals. Selection index theory was used to show a substantial degree of error correlation when animals used for testing genomic predictions are progeny of training animals, when heritability is low, and when the number of recorded progeny for both training and testing animals is low. Even when training involves a dependent variable that is not influenced by the progeny records of testing animals (i.e., historic proofs), error correlations can still result from records of relatives of training animals contributing to both the historic proofs and the predictions of genetic merit of testing animals. A simple simulation was used to show how an error correlation could result in spurious confirmation of predictive ability that was overestimated in the training population because of ascertainment bias. Development of a method of testing genomic selection predictions that allows unbiased testing when training and testing variables are estimated breeding values from the same genetic evaluation would simplify training and testing of genomic predictions. In the meantime, a 4-step approach for separating records used for training from those used for testing after correction of fixed effects is suggested when use of progeny averages of adjusted records (e.g., daughter yield deviations) would result in inefficient use of the information available in the data. Copyright (c) 2010 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20630248     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2009-2845

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dairy Sci        ISSN: 0022-0302            Impact factor:   4.034


  7 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Deregressed EBV as the response variable yield more reliable genomic predictions than traditional EBV in pure-bred pigs.

Authors:  Tage Ostersen; Ole F Christensen; Mark Henryon; Bjarne Nielsen; Guosheng Su; Per Madsen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-11-09       Impact factor: 4.297

3.  Genomic prediction using preselected DNA variants from a GWAS with whole-genome sequence data in Holstein-Friesian cattle.

Authors:  Roel F Veerkamp; Aniek C Bouwman; Chris Schrooten; Mario P L Calus
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2016-12-01       Impact factor: 4.297

4.  Pitfalls and Remedies for Cross Validation with Multi-trait Genomic Prediction Methods.

Authors:  Daniel Runcie; Hao Cheng
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 3.154

5.  Independent Validation of Genomic Prediction in Strawberry Over Multiple Cycles.

Authors:  Luis F Osorio; Salvador A Gezan; Sujeet Verma; Vance M Whitaker
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2021-01-22       Impact factor: 4.599

6.  Genomic selection using low density marker panels with application to a sire line in pigs.

Authors:  Robin Wellmann; Siegfried Preuß; Ernst Tholen; Jörg Heinkel; Klaus Wimmers; Jörn Bennewitz
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2013-07-29       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  Accuracy of genomic predictions in Bos indicus (Nellore) cattle.

Authors:  Haroldo H R Neves; Roberto Carvalheiro; Ana M Pérez O'Brien; Yuri T Utsunomiya; Adriana S do Carmo; Flávio S Schenkel; Johann Sölkner; John C McEwan; Curtis P Van Tassell; John B Cole; Marcos V G B da Silva; Sandra A Queiroz; Tad S Sonstegard; José Fernando Garcia
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-02-27       Impact factor: 4.297

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.