Literature DB >> 25567991

Quality control of genotypes using heritability estimates of gene content at the marker.

Natalia S Forneris1, Andres Legarra2, Zulma G Vitezica3, Shogo Tsuruta4, Ignacio Aguilar5, Ignacy Misztal4, Rodolfo J C Cantet1.   

Abstract

Quality control filtering of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) is a key step when analyzing genomic data. Here we present a practical method to identify low-quality SNPs, meaning markers whose genotypes are wrongly assigned for a large proportion of individuals, by estimating the heritability of gene content at each marker, where gene content is the number of copies of a particular reference allele in a genotype of an animal (0, 1, or 2). If there is no mutation at the marker, gene content has an additive heritability of 1 by construction. The method uses restricted maximum likelihood (REML) to estimate heritability of gene content at each SNP and also builds a likelihood-ratio test statistic to test for zero error variance in genotyping. As a by-product, estimates of the allele frequencies of markers at the base population are obtained. Using simulated data with 10% permutation error (4% actual error) in genotyping, the method had a specificity of 0.96 (4% of correct markers are rejected) and a sensitivity of 0.99 (1% of wrong markers are accepted) if markers with heritability lower than 0.975 are discarded. Checking of Mendelian errors resulted in a lower sensitivity (0.84) for the same simulation. The proposed method is further illustrated with a real data set with genotypes from 3534 animals genotyped for 50,433 markers from the Illumina PorcineSNP60 chip and a pedigree of 6473 individuals; those markers underwent very little quality control. A total of 4099 markers with P-values lower than 0.01 were discarded based on our method, with associated estimates of heritability as low as 0.12. Contrary to other techniques, our method uses all information in the population simultaneously, can be used in any population with markers and pedigree recordings, and is simple to implement using standard software for REML estimation. Scripts for its use are provided.
Copyright © 2015 by the Genetics Society of America.

Keywords:  GenPred; REML; SNP; gene content; genomic selection; quality control; shared data resource

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25567991      PMCID: PMC4349063          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.114.173559

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


  16 in total

1.  A note on the asymptotic distribution of likelihood ratio tests to test variance components.

Authors:  Peter M Visscher
Journal:  Twin Res Hum Genet       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 1.587

2.  QMSim: a large-scale genome simulator for livestock.

Authors:  Mehdi Sargolzaei; Flavio S Schenkel
Journal:  Bioinformatics       Date:  2009-01-28       Impact factor: 6.937

3.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

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

4.  Multipoint quantitative-trait linkage analysis in general pedigrees.

Authors:  L Almasy; J Blangero
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 11.025

5.  A simple method to approximate gene content in large pedigree populations: application to the myostatin gene in dual-purpose Belgian Blue cattle.

Authors:  N Gengler; P Mayeres; M Szydlowski
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Confirmation and discovery of maternal grandsires and great-grandsires in dairy cattle.

Authors:  P M VanRaden; T A Cooper; G R Wiggans; J R O'Connell; L R Bacheller
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2013-01-16       Impact factor: 4.034

7.  Differences between genomic-based and pedigree-based relationships in a chicken population, as a function of quality control and pedigree links among individuals.

Authors:  H Wang; I Misztal; A Legarra
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2014-07-15       Impact factor: 2.380

8.  Selection of single-nucleotide polymorphisms and quality of genotypes used in genomic evaluation of dairy cattle in the United States and Canada.

Authors:  G R Wiggans; T S Sonstegard; P M VanRaden; L K Matukumalli; R D Schnabel; J F Taylor; F S Schenkel; C P Van Tassell
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.034

9.  A note on the rationale for estimating genealogical coancestry from molecular markers.

Authors:  Miguel Angel Toro; Luis Alberto García-Cortés; Andrés Legarra
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-07-12       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  A common dataset for genomic analysis of livestock populations.

Authors:  Matthew A Cleveland; John M Hickey; Selma Forni
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2012-04-01       Impact factor: 3.154

View more
  11 in total

Review 1.  Walking through the statistical black boxes of plant breeding.

Authors:  Alencar Xavier; William M Muir; Bruce Craig; Katy Martin Rainey
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 5.699

2.  Estimation of indirect social genetic effects for skin lesion count in group-housed pigs by quantifying behavioral interactions1.

Authors:  Belcy K Angarita; Rodolfo J C Cantet; Kaitlin E Wurtz; Carly I O O’Malley; Janice M Siegford; Catherine W Ernst; Simon P Turner; Juan P Steibel
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-09-03       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Accuracy of estimated breeding values with genomic information on males, females, or both: an example on broiler chicken.

Authors:  Daniela A L Lourenco; Breno O Fragomeni; Shogo Tsuruta; Ignacio Aguilar; Birgit Zumbach; Rachel J Hawken; Andres Legarra; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-07-02       Impact factor: 4.297

4.  Genomic prediction of unordered categorical traits: an application to subpopulation assignment in German Warmblood horses.

Authors:  Claas Heuer; Christoph Scheel; Jens Tetens; Christa Kühn; Georg Thaller
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2016-02-11       Impact factor: 4.297

5.  Metafounders are related to F st fixation indices and reduce bias in single-step genomic evaluations.

Authors:  Carolina A Garcia-Baccino; Andres Legarra; Ole F Christensen; Ignacy Misztal; Ivan Pocrnic; Zulma G Vitezica; Rodolfo J C Cantet
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 4.297

6.  Impact of imputation methods on the amount of genetic variation captured by a single-nucleotide polymorphism panel in soybeans.

Authors:  A Xavier; William M Muir; Katy M Rainey
Journal:  BMC Bioinformatics       Date:  2016-02-02       Impact factor: 3.169

7.  Genetic evaluation with major genes and polygenic inheritance when some animals are not genotyped using gene content multiple-trait BLUP.

Authors:  Andrés Legarra; Zulma G Vitezica
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2015-11-17       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Bias and accuracy of dairy sheep evaluations using BLUP and SSGBLUP with metafounders and unknown parent groups.

Authors:  Fernando L Macedo; Ole F Christensen; Jean-Michel Astruc; Ignacio Aguilar; Yutaka Masuda; Andrés Legarra
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2020-08-12       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Theoretical and empirical comparisons of expected and realized relationships for the X-chromosome.

Authors:  Tom Druet; Andres Legarra
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2020-08-20       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Development of diagnostic SNP markers for quality assurance and control in sweetpotato [Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] breeding programs.

Authors:  Dorcus C Gemenet; Mercy N Kitavi; Maria David; Dorcah Ndege; Reuben T Ssali; Jolien Swanckaert; Godwill Makunde; G Craig Yencho; Wolfgang Gruneberg; Edward Carey; Robert O Mwanga; Maria I Andrade; Simon Heck; Hugo Campos
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.