Mario Pl Calus1, Heyun Huang2, Addie Vereijken3, Jeroen Visscher4, Jan Ten Napel5, Jack J Windig6. 1. Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700, AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. mario.calus@wur.nl. 2. Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700, AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. heyunhuang@qq.com. 3. Hendrix Genetics Research, Technology & Services B.V., P.O. Box 114, 5830, AC, Boxmeer, The Netherlands. Addie.Vereijken@hendrix-genetics.com. 4. ISA, Institut de Sélection Animale, P.O. Box 114, 5830, AC, Boxmeer, The Netherlands. Jeroen.Visscher@hendrix-genetics.com. 5. Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700, AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. jan.tennapel@wur.nl. 6. Animal Breeding and Genomics Centre, Wageningen UR Livestock Research, P.O. Box 338, 6700, AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands. jack.windig@wur.nl.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prediction accuracy of several linear genomic prediction models, which have previously been used for within-line genomic prediction, was evaluated for multi-line genomic prediction. METHODS: Compared to a conventional BLUP (best linear unbiased prediction) model using pedigree data, we evaluated the following genomic prediction models: genome-enabled BLUP (GBLUP), ridge regression BLUP (RRBLUP), principal component analysis followed by ridge regression (RRPCA), BayesC and Bayesian stochastic search variable selection. Prediction accuracy was measured as the correlation between predicted breeding values and observed phenotypes divided by the square root of the heritability. The data used concerned laying hens with phenotypes for number of eggs in the first production period and known genotypes. The hens were from two closely-related brown layer lines (B1 and B2), and a third distantly-related white layer line (W1). Lines had 1004 to 1023 training animals and 238 to 240 validation animals. Training datasets consisted of animals of either single lines, or a combination of two or all three lines, and had 30 508 to 45 974 segregating single nucleotide polymorphisms. RESULTS: Genomic prediction models yielded 0.13 to 0.16 higher accuracies than pedigree-based BLUP. When excluding the line itself from the training dataset, genomic predictions were generally inaccurate. Use of multiple lines marginally improved prediction accuracy for B2 but did not affect or slightly decreased prediction accuracy for B1 and W1. Differences between models were generally small except for RRPCA which gave considerably higher accuracies for B2. Correlations between genomic predictions from different methods were higher than 0.96 for W1 and higher than 0.88 for B1 and B2. The greater differences between methods for B1 and B2 were probably due to the lower accuracy of predictions for B1 (~0.45) and B2 (~0.40) compared to W1 (~0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-line genomic prediction did not affect or slightly improved prediction accuracy for closely-related lines. For distantly-related lines, multi-line genomic prediction yielded similar or slightly lower accuracies than single-line genomic prediction. Bayesian variable selection and GBLUP generally gave similar accuracies. Overall, RRPCA yielded the greatest accuracies for two lines, suggesting that using PCA helps to alleviate the "n ≪ p" problem in genomic prediction.
BACKGROUND: The prediction accuracy of several linear genomic prediction models, which have previously been used for within-line genomic prediction, was evaluated for multi-line genomic prediction. METHODS: Compared to a conventional BLUP (best linear unbiased prediction) model using pedigree data, we evaluated the following genomic prediction models: genome-enabled BLUP (GBLUP), ridge regression BLUP (RRBLUP), principal component analysis followed by ridge regression (RRPCA), BayesC and Bayesian stochastic search variable selection. Prediction accuracy was measured as the correlation between predicted breeding values and observed phenotypes divided by the square root of the heritability. The data used concerned laying hens with phenotypes for number of eggs in the first production period and known genotypes. The hens were from two closely-related brown layer lines (B1 and B2), and a third distantly-related white layer line (W1). Lines had 1004 to 1023 training animals and 238 to 240 validation animals. Training datasets consisted of animals of either single lines, or a combination of two or all three lines, and had 30 508 to 45 974 segregating single nucleotide polymorphisms. RESULTS: Genomic prediction models yielded 0.13 to 0.16 higher accuracies than pedigree-based BLUP. When excluding the line itself from the training dataset, genomic predictions were generally inaccurate. Use of multiple lines marginally improved prediction accuracy for B2 but did not affect or slightly decreased prediction accuracy for B1 and W1. Differences between models were generally small except for RRPCA which gave considerably higher accuracies for B2. Correlations between genomic predictions from different methods were higher than 0.96 for W1 and higher than 0.88 for B1 and B2. The greater differences between methods for B1 and B2 were probably due to the lower accuracy of predictions for B1 (~0.45) and B2 (~0.40) compared to W1 (~0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-line genomic prediction did not affect or slightly improved prediction accuracy for closely-related lines. For distantly-related lines, multi-line genomic prediction yielded similar or slightly lower accuracies than single-line genomic prediction. Bayesian variable selection and GBLUP generally gave similar accuracies. Overall, RRPCA yielded the greatest accuracies for two lines, suggesting that using PCA helps to alleviate the "n ≪ p" problem in genomic prediction.
Authors: M Erbe; B J Hayes; L K Matukumalli; S Goswami; P J Bowman; C M Reich; B A Mason; M E Goddard Journal: J Dairy Sci Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 4.034
Authors: M A Pintus; G Gaspa; E L Nicolazzi; D Vicario; A Rossoni; P Ajmone-Marsan; A Nardone; C Dimauro; N P P Macciotta Journal: J Dairy Sci Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 4.034
Authors: Hans D Daetwyler; Mario P L Calus; Ricardo Pong-Wong; Gustavo de Los Campos; John M Hickey Journal: Genetics Date: 2012-12-05 Impact factor: 4.562
Authors: M A Pintus; E L Nicolazzi; J B C H M Van Kaam; S Biffani; A Stella; G Gaspa; C Dimauro; N P P Macciotta Journal: J Anim Breed Genet Date: 2012-07-24 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: G Gaspa; M A Pintus; E L Nicolazzi; D Vicario; A Valentini; C Dimauro; N P P Macciotta Journal: J Anim Sci Date: 2012-10-16 Impact factor: 3.159
Authors: Gustavo de Los Campos; John M Hickey; Ricardo Pong-Wong; Hans D Daetwyler; Mario P L Calus Journal: Genetics Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 4.562
Authors: Anna Wolc; Wioleta Drobik-Czwarno; Janet E Fulton; Jesus Arango; Tomasz Jankowski; Jack C M Dekkers Journal: Genet Sel Evol Date: 2018-05-02 Impact factor: 4.297