Literature DB >> 23267052

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

Yvonne C J Wientjes1, Roel F Veerkamp, Mario P L Calus.   

Abstract

Although the concept of genomic selection relies on linkage disequilibrium (LD) between quantitative trait loci and markers, reliability of genomic predictions is strongly influenced by family relationships. In this study, we investigated the effects of LD and family relationships on reliability of genomic predictions and the potential of deterministic formulas to predict reliability using population parameters in populations with complex family structures. Five groups of selection candidates were simulated by taking different information sources from the reference population into account: (1) allele frequencies, (2) LD pattern, (3) haplotypes, (4) haploid chromosomes, and (5) individuals from the reference population, thereby having real family relationships with reference individuals. Reliabilities were predicted using genomic relationships among 529 reference individuals and their relationships with selection candidates and with a deterministic formula where the number of effective chromosome segments (M(e)) was estimated based on genomic and additive relationship matrices for each scenario. At a heritability of 0.6, reliabilities based on genomic relationships were 0.002 ± 0.0001 (allele frequencies), 0.022 ± 0.001 (LD pattern), 0.018 ± 0.001 (haplotypes), 0.100 ± 0.008 (haploid chromosomes), and 0.318 ± 0.077 (family relationships). At a heritability of 0.1, relative differences among groups were similar. For all scenarios, reliabilities were similar to predictions with a deterministic formula using estimated M(e). So, reliabilities can be predicted accurately using empirically estimated M(e) and level of relationship with reference individuals has a much higher effect on the reliability than linkage disequilibrium per se. Furthermore, accumulated length of shared haplotypes is more important in determining the reliability of genomic prediction than the individual shared haplotype length.

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23267052      PMCID: PMC3567749          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.112.146290

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


  50 in total

Review 1.  Commercial application of marker- and gene-assisted selection in livestock: strategies and lessons.

Authors:  J C M Dekkers
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Accuracy of genomic predictions of residual feed intake and 250-day body weight in growing heifers using 625,000 single nucleotide polymorphism markers.

Authors:  J E Pryce; J Arias; P J Bowman; S R Davis; K A Macdonald; G C Waghorn; W J Wales; Y J Williams; R J Spelman; B J Hayes
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.034

3.  Predicting energy balance for dairy cows using high-density single nucleotide polymorphism information.

Authors:  K L Verbyla; M P L Calus; H A Mulder; Y de Haas; R F Veerkamp
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 4.034

4.  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

5.  Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix.

Authors:  B J Hayes; P M Visscher; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.588

6.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

Authors:  P M VanRaden
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.034

7.  A relationship matrix including full pedigree and genomic information.

Authors:  A Legarra; I Aguilar; I Misztal
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2009-09       Impact factor: 4.034

8.  Common SNPs explain a large proportion of the heritability for human height.

Authors:  Jian Yang; Beben Benyamin; Brian P McEvoy; Scott Gordon; Anjali K Henders; Dale R Nyholt; Pamela A Madden; Andrew C Heath; Nicholas G Martin; Grant W Montgomery; Michael E Goddard; Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2010-06-20       Impact factor: 38.330

9.  Reliability of direct genomic values for animals with different relationships within and to the reference population.

Authors:  M Pszczola; T Strabel; H A Mulder; M P L Calus
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.034

10.  Identification of Mendelian inconsistencies between SNP and pedigree information of sibs.

Authors:  Mario P L Calus; Han A Mulder; John W M Bastiaansen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-10-11       Impact factor: 4.297

View more
  61 in total

1.  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

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.  Moving Beyond Managing Realized Genomic Relationship in Long-Term Genomic Selection.

Authors:  Herman De Beukelaer; Yvonne Badke; Veerle Fack; Geert De Meyer
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2017-04-04       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Relevance of genetic relationship in GWAS and genomic prediction.

Authors:  Helcio Duarte Pereira; José Marcelo Soriano Viana; Andréa Carla Bastos Andrade; Fabyano Fonseca E Silva; Geísa Pinheiro Paes
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2017-11-30       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Genomic prediction based on data from three layer lines using non-linear regression models.

Authors:  Heyun Huang; Jack J Windig; Addie Vereijken; Mario P L Calus
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-11-06       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  Genome properties of key oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) breeding populations.

Authors:  Essubalew Getachew Seyum; Ngalle Hermine Bille; Wosene Gebreselassie Abtew; Pasi Rastas; Deni Arifianto; Hubert Domonhédo; Benoît Cochard; Florence Jacob; Virginie Riou; Virginie Pomiès; David Lopez; Joseph Martin Bell; David Cros
Journal:  J Appl Genet       Date:  2022-06-13       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Building a Calibration Set for Genomic Prediction, Characteristics to Be Considered, and Optimization Approaches.

Authors:  Simon Rio; Alain Charcosset; Tristan Mary-Huard; Laurence Moreau; Renaud Rincent
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

9.  When less can be better: How can we make genomic selection more cost-effective and accurate in barley?

Authors:  Amina Abed; Paulino Pérez-Rodríguez; José Crossa; François Belzile
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 5.699

10.  Genomic prediction ability for yield-related traits in German winter barley elite material.

Authors:  Patrick Thorwarth; Jutta Ahlemeyer; Anne-Marie Bochard; Kerstin Krumnacker; Hubert Blümel; Eberhard Laubach; Nadine Knöchel; László Cselényi; Frank Ordon; Karl J Schmid
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2017-05-22       Impact factor: 5.699

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.