Literature DB >> 23660137

Model comparison on genomic predictions using high-density markers for different groups of bulls in the Nordic Holstein population.

H Gao1, G Su, L Janss, Y Zhang, M S Lund.   

Abstract

This study compared genomic predictions based on imputed high-density markers (~777,000) in the Nordic Holstein population using a genomic BLUP (GBLUP) model, 4 Bayesian exponential power models with different shape parameters (0.3, 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0) for the exponential power distribution, and a Bayesian mixture model (a mixture of 4 normal distributions). Direct genomic values (DGV) were estimated for milk yield, fat yield, protein yield, fertility, and mastitis, using deregressed proofs (DRP) as response variable. The validation animals were split into 4 groups according to their genetic relationship with the training population. Groupsmgs had both the sire and the maternal grandsire (MGS), Groupsire only had the sire, Groupmgs only had the MGS, and Groupnon had neither the sire nor the MGS in the training population. Reliability of DGV was measured as the squared correlation between DGV and DRP divided by the reliability of DRP for the bulls in validation data set. Unbiasedness of DGV was measured as the regression of DRP on DGV. The results indicated that DGV were more accurate and less biased for animals that were more related to the training population. In general, the Bayesian mixture model and the exponential power model with shape parameter of 0.30 led to higher reliability of DGV than did the other models. The differences between reliabilities of DGV from the Bayesian models and the GBLUP model were statistically significant for some traits. We observed a tendency that the superiority of the Bayesian models over the GBLUP model was more profound for the groups having weaker relationships with training population. Averaged over the 5 traits, the Bayesian mixture model improved the reliability of DGV by 2.0 percentage points for Groupsmgs, 2.7 percentage points for Groupsire, 3.3 percentage points for Groupmgs, and 4.3 percentage points for Groupnon compared with GBLUP. The results showed that a Bayesian model with intense shrinkage of the explanatory variable, such as the Bayesian mixture model and the Bayesian exponential power model with shape parameter of 0.30, can improve genomic predictions using high-density markers.
Copyright © 2013 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23660137     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2012-6406

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


  19 in total

1.  An Efficient Genome-Wide Multilocus Epistasis Search.

Authors:  Hanni P Kärkkäinen; Zitong Li; Mikko J Sillanpää
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-09-23       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Genomic prediction of genetic merit using LD-based haplotypes in the Nordic Holstein population.

Authors:  Beatriz C D Cuyabano; Guosheng Su; Mogens S Lund
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2014-12-23       Impact factor: 3.969

3.  Effectiveness of shrinkage and variable selection methods for the prediction of complex human traits using data from distantly related individuals.

Authors:  Swetlana Berger; Paulino Pérez-Rodríguez; Yogasudha Veturi; Henner Simianer; Gustavo de los Campos
Journal:  Ann Hum Genet       Date:  2015-01-20       Impact factor: 1.670

4.  Genomic selection for the improvement of antibody response to Newcastle disease and avian influenza virus in chickens.

Authors:  Tianfei Liu; Hao Qu; Chenglong Luo; Xuewei Li; Dingming Shu; Mogens Sandø Lund; Guosheng Su
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-11-17       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Efficient genomic prediction based on whole-genome sequence data using split-and-merge Bayesian variable selection.

Authors:  Mario P L Calus; Aniek C Bouwman; Chris Schrooten; Roel F Veerkamp
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 4.297

6.  Selection of haplotype variables from a high-density marker map for genomic prediction.

Authors:  Beatriz Cd Cuyabano; Guosheng Su; Mogens S Lund
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-08-01       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  Genomic relationships based on X chromosome markers and accuracy of genomic predictions with and without X chromosome markers.

Authors:  Guosheng Su; Bernt Guldbrandtsen; Gert P Aamand; Ismo Strandén; Mogens S Lund
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-07-30       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Strategies for imputation to whole genome sequence using a single or multi-breed reference population in cattle.

Authors:  Rasmus Froberg Brøndum; Bernt Guldbrandtsen; Goutam Sahana; Mogens Sandø Lund; Guosheng Su
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2014-08-27       Impact factor: 3.969

9.  Accuracy of genomic prediction for growth and carcass traits in Chinese triple-yellow chickens.

Authors:  Tianfei Liu; Hao Qu; Chenglong Luo; Dingming Shu; Jie Wang; Mogens Sandø Lund; Guosheng Su
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 2.797

10.  Genomic prediction using models with dominance and imprinting effects for backfat thickness and average daily gain in Danish Duroc pigs.

Authors:  Xiangyu Guo; Ole Fredslund Christensen; Tage Ostersen; Yachun Wang; Mogens Sandø Lund; Guosheng Su
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2016-09-13       Impact factor: 4.297

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.