Literature DB >> 21454868

Effect of different genomic relationship matrices on accuracy and scale.

C Y Chen1, I Misztal, I Aguilar, A Legarra, W M Muir.   

Abstract

Phenotypic data on BW and breast meat area were available on up to 287,614 broilers. A total of 4,113 birds were genotyped for 57,636 SNP. Data were analyzed by a single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP), which accounts for all phenotypic, pedigree, and genomic information. The genomic relationship matrix (G) in ssGBLUP was constructed using either equal (0.5; GEq) or current (GC) allele frequencies, and with all SNP or with SNP with minor allele frequencies (MAF) below multiple thresholds (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and 0.4) ignored. Additionally, a pedigree-based relationship matrix for genotyped birds (A(22)) was available. The matrices and their inverses were compared with regard to average diagonal (AvgD) and off-diagonal (AvgOff) elements. In A(22), AvgD was 1.004 and AvgOff was 0.014. In GEq, both averages decreased with the increasing thresholds for MAF, with AvgD decreasing from 1.373 to 1.020 and AvgOff decreasing from 0.722 to 0.025. In GC, AvgD was approximately 1.01 and AvgOff was 0 for all MAF. For inverses of the relationship matrices, all AvgOff were close to 0; AvgD was 2.375 in A(22), varied from 11.563 to 12.943 for GEq, and increased from 8.675 to 12.859 for GC as the threshold for MAF increased. Predictive ability with all GEq and GC was similar except that at MAF = 0.4, they declined by 0.01 for BW and improved by 0.01 for breast meat area. Compared with BLUP, EBV in the ssGBLUP were, on average, increased by up to 1 additive SD greater with GEq and decreased by 2 additive SD less with GC. Genotyped animals were biased upward with GEq and downward with GC. The biases and differences in EBV could be controlled by adding a constant to GC; they were eliminated with a constant of 0.014, which corresponds to AvgOff in A(22). Unbiased evaluation in the ssGBLUP may be obtained with GC scaled to be compatible with A(22). The reduction of SNP with small MAF has a small effect on the real accuracy, but it may falsely increase the estimated accuracies by inversion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21454868     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2010-3555

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


  30 in total

1.  Modeling additive and non-additive effects in a hybrid population using genome-wide genotyping: prediction accuracy implications.

Authors:  J-M Bouvet; G Makouanzi; D Cros; Ph Vigneron
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-09-02       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Incorporating the single-step strategy into a random regression model to enhance genomic prediction of longitudinal traits.

Authors:  H Kang; L Zhou; R Mrode; Q Zhang; J-F Liu
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 3.821

3.  Genomic predictions in purebreds with a multibreed genomic relationship matrix1.

Authors:  Yvette Steyn; Daniela A L Lourenco; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  Prediction ability for growth and maternal traits using SNP arrays based on different marker densities in Nellore cattle using the ssGBLUP.

Authors:  Juan Diego Rodriguez Neira; Elisa Peripolli; Maria Paula Marinho de Negreiros; Rafael Espigolan; Rodrigo López-Correa; Ignacio Aguilar; Raysildo B Lobo; Fernando Baldi
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2022-02-08       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Population-tailored mock genome enables genomic studies in species without a reference genome.

Authors:  Felipe Sabadin; Humberto Fanelli Carvalho; Giovanni Galli; Roberto Fritsche-Neto
Journal:  Mol Genet Genomics       Date:  2021-11-09       Impact factor: 3.291

6.  Prediction of genetic merit for growth rate in pigs using animal models with indirect genetic effects and genomic information.

Authors:  Bjarke G Poulsen; Birgitte Ask; Hanne M Nielsen; Tage Ostersen; Ole F Christensen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2020-10-07       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  Comparison of models for missing pedigree in single-step genomic prediction.

Authors:  Yutaka Masuda; Shogo Tsuruta; Matias Bermann; Heather L Bradford; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2021-02-01       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population.

Authors:  Hongding Gao; Ole F Christensen; Per Madsen; Ulrik S Nielsen; Yuan Zhang; Mogens S Lund; Guosheng Su
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Integration of a single-step genome-wide association study with a multi-tissue transcriptome analysis provides novel insights into the genetic basis of wool and weight traits in sheep.

Authors:  Bingru Zhao; Hanpeng Luo; Xixia Huang; Chen Wei; Jiang Di; Yuezhen Tian; Xuefeng Fu; Bingjie Li; George E Liu; Lingzhao Fang; Shengli Zhang; Kechuan Tian
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Compatibility of pedigree-based and marker-based relationship matrices for single-step genetic evaluation.

Authors:  Ole F Christensen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2012-12-03       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.