Literature DB >> 25864050

Hot topic: Use of genomic recursions in single-step genomic best linear unbiased predictor (BLUP) with a large number of genotypes.

B O Fragomeni1, D A L Lourenco2, S Tsuruta2, Y Masuda2, I Aguilar3, A Legarra4, T J Lawlor5, I Misztal2.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of genomic selection in single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP) when the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix (G) is derived by the "algorithm for proven and young animals" (APY). This algorithm implements genomic recursions on a subset of "proven" animals. Only a relationship matrix for animals treated as "proven" needs to be inverted, and the extra costs of adding animals treated as "young" are linear. Analyses involved 10,102,702 final scores on 6,930,618 Holstein cows. Final score, which is a composite of type traits, is popular trait in the United States and was easily available for this study. A total of 100,000 animals with genotypes were used in the analyses and included 23,000 sires (16,000 with >5 progeny), 27,000 cows, and 50,000 young animals. Genomic EBV (GEBV) were calculated with a regular inverse of G, and with the G inverse approximated by APY. Animals in the proven subset included only sires (23,000), sires+cows (50,000), only cows (27,000), or sires with >5 progeny (16,000). The correlations of GEBV with APY and regular GEBV for young genotyped animals were 0.994, 0.995, 0.992, and 0.992, respectively Later, animals in the proven subset were randomly sampled from all genotyped animals in sets of 2,000, 5,000, 10,000, 15,000, and 20,000; each sample was replicated 4 times. Respective correlations were 0.97 (5,000 sample), 0.98 (10,000 sample), and 0.99 (20,000 sample), with minimal difference between samples of the same size. Genomic EBV with APY were accurate when the number of animals used in the subset is between 10,000 and 20,000, with little difference between the ways of creating the subset. Due to the approximately linear cost of APY, ssGBLUP with APY could support any number of genotyped animals without affecting accuracy.
Copyright © 2015 American Dairy Science Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  genomic recursion; genomic selection; single-step method

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25864050     DOI: 10.3168/jds.2014-9125

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


  20 in total

1.  Sparse single-step genomic BLUP in crossbreeding schemes.

Authors:  Jérémie Vandenplas; Mario P L Calus; Jan Ten Napel
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  The quality of the algorithm for proven and young with various sets of core animals in a multibreed sheep population1.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Nilforooshan; Michael Lee
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Efficient single-step genomic evaluation for a multibreed beef cattle population having many genotyped animals.

Authors:  E A Mäntysaari; R D Evans; I Strandén
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2017-11       Impact factor: 3.159

4.  On the equivalence between marker effect models and breeding value models and direct genomic values with the Algorithm for Proven and Young.

Authors:  Matias Bermann; Daniela Lourenco; Natalia S Forneris; Andres Legarra; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 5.100

5.  Efficient genetic value prediction using incomplete omics data.

Authors:  Matthias Westhues; Claas Heuer; Georg Thaller; Rohan Fernando; Albrecht E Melchinger
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2019-01-17       Impact factor: 5.699

6.  Dimensionality of genomic information and performance of the Algorithm for Proven and Young for different livestock species.

Authors:  Ivan Pocrnic; Daniela A L Lourenco; Yutaka Masuda; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2016-10-31       Impact factor: 4.297

7.  An efficient exact method to obtain GBLUP and single-step GBLUP when the genomic relationship matrix is singular.

Authors:  Rohan L Fernando; Hao Cheng; Dorian J Garrick
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2016-10-27       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Sparse single-step method for genomic evaluation in pigs.

Authors:  Tage Ostersen; Ole F Christensen; Per Madsen; Mark Henryon
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2016-06-29       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  The Dimensionality of Genomic Information and Its Effect on Genomic Prediction.

Authors:  Ivan Pocrnic; Daniela A L Lourenco; Yutaka Masuda; Andres Legarra; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 4.562

10.  Inexpensive Computation of the Inverse of the Genomic Relationship Matrix in Populations with Small Effective Population Size.

Authors:  Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2015-11-19       Impact factor: 4.562

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.