Literature DB >> 25284459

Genomic prediction based on runs of homozygosity.

Tu Luan1, Xijiang Yu2, Marlies Dolezal3, Alessandro Bagnato4, Theo He Meuwissen5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Genomic prediction is based on the accurate estimation of the genomic relationships among and between training animals and selection candidates in order to obtain accurate estimates of the genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV). Various methods have been used to predict GEBV based on population-wide linkage disequilibrium relationships (G IBS ) or sometimes on linkage analysis relationships (G LA ). Here, we propose a novel method to predict GEBV based on a genomic relationship matrix using runs of homozygosity (G ROH ). Runs of homozygosity were used to derive probabilities of multi-locus identity by descent chromosome segments. The accuracy and bias of the prediction of GEBV using G ROH were compared to those using G IBS and G LA . Comparisons were performed using simulated datasets derived from a random pedigree and a real pedigree of Italian Brown Swiss bulls. The comparison of accuracies of GEBV was also performed on data from 1086 Italian Brown Swiss dairy cattle.
RESULTS: Simulations with various thresholds of minor allele frequency for markers and quantitative trait loci showed that G ROH achieved consistently more accurate GEBV (0 to 4% points higher) than G IBS and G LA . The bias of GEBV prediction for simulated data was higher based on the real pedigree than based on a random pedigree. In the analyses with real data, G ROH and G LA had similar accuracies. However, G LA achieved a higher accuracy when the prediction was done on the youngest animals. The G IBS matrices calculated with and without standardized marker genotypes resulted in similar accuracies.
CONCLUSIONS: The present study proposes G ROH as a novel method to estimate genomic relationship matrices and predict GEBV based on runs of homozygosity and shows that it can result in higher or similar accuracies of GEBV prediction than G LA , except for the real data analysis with validation of young animals. Compared to G IBS , G ROH resulted in more accurate GEBV predictions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25284459      PMCID: PMC4189176          DOI: 10.1186/s12711-014-0064-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Sel Evol        ISSN: 0999-193X            Impact factor:   4.297


  15 in total

1.  Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps.

Authors:  T H Meuwissen; B J Hayes; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Prediction of identity by descent probabilities from marker-haplotypes.

Authors:  T H Meuwissen; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2001 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.297

3.  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

4.  The impact of genetic relationship information on genome-assisted breeding values.

Authors:  D Habier; R L Fernando; J C M Dekkers
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.562

5.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

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

6.  A novel predictor of multilocus haplotype homozygosity: comparison with existing predictors.

Authors:  I M MacLeod; T H E Meuwissen; B J Hayes; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2009-12       Impact factor: 1.588

7.  Linkage disequilibrium and homozygosity of chromosome segments in finite populations.

Authors:  J A Sved
Journal:  Theor Popul Biol       Date:  1971-06       Impact factor: 1.570

8.  Maximum-likelihood estimation of gene location by linkage disequilibrium.

Authors:  W G Hill; B S Weir
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1994-04       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Novel multilocus measure of linkage disequilibrium to estimate past effective population size.

Authors:  Ben J Hayes; Peter M Visscher; Helen C McPartlan; Mike E Goddard
Journal:  Genome Res       Date:  2003-03-12       Impact factor: 9.043

10.  The importance of identity-by-state information for the accuracy of genomic selection.

Authors:  Tu Luan; John A Woolliams; Jørgen Odegård; Marlies Dolezal; Sergio I Roman-Ponce; Alessandro Bagnato; Theo He Meuwissen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2012-08-31       Impact factor: 4.297

View more
  10 in total

1.  A genealogical estimate of genetic relationships.

Authors:  Caoqi Fan; Nicholas Mancuso; Charleston W K Chiang
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2022-04-12       Impact factor: 11.043

2.  Genome-wide estimates of coancestry, inbreeding and effective population size in the Spanish Holstein population.

Authors:  Silvia Teresa Rodríguez-Ramilo; Jesús Fernández; Miguel Angel Toro; Delfino Hernández; Beatriz Villanueva
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  The effect of rare alleles on estimated genomic relationships from whole genome sequence data.

Authors:  Sonia E Eynard; Jack J Windig; Grégoire Leroy; Rianne van Binsbergen; Mario P L Calus
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2015-03-12       Impact factor: 2.797

4.  Artificial selection with traditional or genomic relationships: consequences in coancestry and genetic diversity.

Authors:  Silvia Teresa Rodríguez-Ramilo; Luis Alberto García-Cortés; María Ángeles Rodríguez de Cara
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2015-04-07       Impact factor: 4.599

5.  Genomic analysis of Ugandan and Rwandan chicken ecotypes using a 600 k genotyping array.

Authors:  D S Fleming; J E Koltes; A D Markey; C J Schmidt; C M Ashwell; M F Rothschild; M E Persia; J M Reecy; S J Lamont
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 3.969

6.  Compression distance can discriminate animals by genetic profile, build relationship matrices and estimate breeding values.

Authors:  Nicholas J Hudson; Laercio Porto-Neto; James W Kijas; Antonio Reverter
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-10-13       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  Weighted likelihood inference of genomic autozygosity patterns in dense genotype data.

Authors:  Alexandra Blant; Michelle Kwong; Zachary A Szpiech; Trevor J Pemberton
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 3.969

8.  Estimation of inbreeding and identification of regions under heavy selection based on runs of homozygosity in a Large White pig population.

Authors:  Liangyu Shi; Ligang Wang; Jiaxin Liu; Tianyu Deng; Hua Yan; Longchao Zhang; Xin Liu; Hongmei Gao; Xinhua Hou; Lixian Wang; Fuping Zhao
Journal:  J Anim Sci Biotechnol       Date:  2020-04-28

9.  The distribution of runs of homozygosity in the genome of river and swamp buffaloes reveals a history of adaptation, migration and crossbred events.

Authors:  Nicolo P P Macciotta; Licia Colli; Alberto Cesarani; Paolo Ajmone-Marsan; Wai Y Low; Rick Tearle; John L Williams
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2021-02-27       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Design and validation of a 90K SNP genotyping assay for the water buffalo (Bubalus bubalis).

Authors:  Daniela Iamartino; Ezequiel L Nicolazzi; Curtis P Van Tassell; James M Reecy; Eric R Fritz-Waters; James E Koltes; Stefano Biffani; Tad S Sonstegard; Steven G Schroeder; Paolo Ajmone-Marsan; Riccardo Negrini; Rolando Pasquariello; Paola Ramelli; Angelo Coletta; José F Garcia; Ahmad Ali; Luigi Ramunno; Gianfranco Cosenza; Denise A A de Oliveira; Marcela G Drummond; Eduardo Bastianetto; Alessandro Davassi; Ali Pirani; Fiona Brew; John L Williams
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.