Literature DB >> 23640517

Genomic BLUP decoded: a look into the black box of genomic prediction.

David Habier1, Rohan L Fernando, Dorian J Garrick.   

Abstract

Genomic best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) is a statistical method that uses relationships between individuals calculated from single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) to capture relationships at quantitative trait loci (QTL). We show that genomic BLUP exploits not only linkage disequilibrium (LD) and additive-genetic relationships, but also cosegregation to capture relationships at QTL. Simulations were used to study the contributions of those types of information to accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs), their persistence over generations without retraining, and their effect on the correlation of GEBVs within families. We show that accuracy of GEBVs based on additive-genetic relationships can decline with increasing training data size and speculate that modeling polygenic effects via pedigree relationships jointly with genomic breeding values using Bayesian methods may prevent that decline. Cosegregation information from half sibs contributes little to accuracy of GEBVs in current dairy cattle breeding schemes but from full sibs it contributes considerably to accuracy within family in corn breeding. Cosegregation information also declines with increasing training data size, and its persistence over generations is lower than that of LD, suggesting the need to model LD and cosegregation explicitly. The correlation between GEBVs within families depends largely on additive-genetic relationship information, which is determined by the effective number of SNPs and training data size. As genomic BLUP cannot capture short-range LD information well, we recommend Bayesian methods with t-distributed priors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GenPred; Shared data resources; additive-genetic relationships; cosegregation; genomic best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP); genomic selection; linkage disequilibrium (LD)

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23640517      PMCID: PMC3697966          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.113.152207

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


  34 in total

1.  Using the genomic relationship matrix to predict the accuracy of genomic selection.

Authors:  M E Goddard; B J Hayes; T H E Meuwissen
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 2.380

2.  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

3.  A two-stage approximation for analysis of mixture genetic models in large pedigrees.

Authors:  D Habier; L R Totir; R L Fernando
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-04-09       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  Genome-based prediction of testcross values in maize.

Authors:  Theresa Albrecht; Valentin Wimmer; Hans-Jürgen Auinger; Malena Erbe; Carsten Knaak; Milena Ouzunova; Henner Simianer; Chris-Carolin Schön
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 5.699

5.  Variation in actual relationship as a consequence of Mendelian sampling and linkage.

Authors:  W G Hill; B S Weir
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 1.588

6.  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

7.  The pattern of linkage disequilibrium in German Holstein cattle.

Authors:  S Qanbari; E C G Pimentel; J Tetens; G Thaller; P Lichtner; A R Sharifi; H Simianer
Journal:  Anim Genet       Date:  2010-01-03       Impact factor: 3.169

8.  Accuracy of multi-trait genomic selection using different methods.

Authors:  Mario P L Calus; Roel F Veerkamp
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-07-05       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection.

Authors:  David Habier; Rohan L Fernando; Kadir Kizilkaya; Dorian J Garrick
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2011-05-23       Impact factor: 3.169

10.  A common reference population from four European Holstein populations increases reliability of genomic predictions.

Authors:  Mogens S Lund; Adrianus P W de Roos; Alfred G de Vries; Tom Druet; Vincent Ducrocq; Sébastien Fritz; François Guillaume; Bernt Guldbrandtsen; Zenting Liu; Reinhard Reents; Chris Schrooten; Franz Seefried; Guosheng Su
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-12-12       Impact factor: 4.297

View more
  128 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  Forecasting the accuracy of genomic prediction with different selection targets in the training and prediction set as well as truncation selection.

Authors:  Pascal Schopp; Christian Riedelsheimer; H Friedrich Utz; Chris-Carolin Schön; Albrecht E Melchinger
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 5.699

Review 3.  Applications of population genetics to animal breeding, from wright, fisher and lush to genomic prediction.

Authors:  William G Hill
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 4.562

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Explicit Modeling of Ancestry Improves Polygenic Risk Scores and BLUP Prediction.

Authors:  Chia-Yen Chen; Jiali Han; David J Hunter; Peter Kraft; Alkes L Price
Journal:  Genet Epidemiol       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 2.135

7.  A comparison of genomic selection models across time in interior spruce (Picea engelmannii × glauca) using unordered SNP imputation methods.

Authors:  B Ratcliffe; O G El-Dien; J Klápště; I Porth; C Chen; B Jaquish; Y A El-Kassaby
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2015-07-01       Impact factor: 3.821

8.  Shrinkage estimation of the genomic relationship matrix can improve genomic estimated breeding values in the training set.

Authors:  Dominik Müller; Frank Technow; Albrecht E Melchinger
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 5.699

9.  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

10.  Assessing the expected response to genomic selection of individuals and families in Eucalyptus breeding with an additive-dominant model.

Authors:  R T Resende; M D V Resende; F F Silva; C F Azevedo; E K Takahashi; O B Silva-Junior; D Grattapaglia
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2017-07-05       Impact factor: 3.821

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.