Literature DB >> 28508481

A comparison of identity-by-descent and identity-by-state matrices that are used for genetic evaluation and estimation of variance components.

R L Fernando1, H Cheng1, X Sun1, D J Garrick1,2.   

Abstract

The genetic covariance matrix conditional on pedigree is proportional to the pedigree-based additive relationship matrix (PARM), which is twice the matrix of identity-by-descent (IBD) probabilities. In genomic prediction, IBD probabilities in the PARM, which are expected genetic similarities between relatives that are derived from the pedigree, are substituted by realized similarities that are derived from genotypes to obtain a genomic additive relationship matrix (GARM). Different definitions of similarity lead to different GARMs, and two commonly used GARMS are the matrix G, which is based on an allele substitution effect model, and the matrix T, which is based on an allele effect model. We show that although the two matrices T and G are not proportional, they give identical predictions of differences between breeding values. When genomic information is used for variance component estimation, the GARM Gx is computed from genotype covariates that have been standardized to have unit variance. That approach is equivalent to fitting a random regression model using the same standardized covariates. We show that under Hardy-Weinberg and linkage equilibria (LE) that the genetic variance is kσγ2, where σγ2 is the variance of a randomly sampled element from the vector of k substitution effects. However, if linkage disequilibrium (LD) has been generated through selection, covariances between genotypes at different loci will be negative, and therefore, the additive genetic variance will be lower than kσγ2. When the GARM Gx is assumed to be proportional to the genetic covariance matrix, the parameter being estimated is kσγ2. We have demonstrated by simulation that kσγ2 overestimates the additive genetic variance when LD is generated by selection. We argue that unlike the PARM, GARMs are not proportional to a genetic covariance matrix conditional on the observed causal genotypes. The objective here is to recognize the difference between these covariance matrices and its implications.
© 2017 The Authors. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics Published by Blackwell Verlag GmbH.

Keywords:  Covariance between relatives; genomic prediction; genomic relationship matrix; identical-by-descent; identical-by-state

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28508481     DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12275

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet        ISSN: 0931-2668            Impact factor:   2.380


  5 in total

1.  A novel linkage-disequilibrium corrected genomic relationship matrix for SNP-heritability estimation and genomic prediction.

Authors:  Boby Mathew; Jens Léon; Mikko J Sillanpää
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 3.821

2.  Genome-wide association and genomic prediction of resistance to viral nervous necrosis in European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) using RAD sequencing.

Authors:  Christos Palaiokostas; Sophie Cariou; Anastasia Bestin; Jean-Sebastien Bruant; Pierrick Haffray; Thierry Morin; Joëlle Cabon; François Allal; Marc Vandeputte; Ross D Houston
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2018-06-08       Impact factor: 4.297

3.  QTLs Associated with Resistance to Cardiomyopathy Syndrome in Atlantic Salmon.

Authors:  Solomon Boison; Jingwen Ding; Erica Leder; Bjarne Gjerde; Per Helge Bergtun; Ashie Norris; Matthew Baranski; Nicholas Robinson
Journal:  J Hered       Date:  2019-10-10       Impact factor: 2.645

4.  Genomic prediction through machine learning and neural networks for traits with epistasis.

Authors:  Weverton Gomes da Costa; Maurício de Oliveira Celeri; Ivan de Paiva Barbosa; Gabi Nunes Silva; Camila Ferreira Azevedo; Aluizio Borem; Moysés Nascimento; Cosme Damião Cruz
Journal:  Comput Struct Biotechnol J       Date:  2022-09-24       Impact factor: 6.155

5.  Best Prediction of the Additive Genomic Variance in Random-Effects Models.

Authors:  Nicholas Schreck; Hans-Peter Piepho; Martin Schlather
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2019-08-05       Impact factor: 4.562

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.