Literature DB >> 28839043

Incorporating Gene Annotation into Genomic Prediction of Complex Phenotypes.

Ning Gao1,2, Johannes W R Martini2, Zhe Zhang1, Xiaolong Yuan1, Hao Zhang1, Henner Simianer3, Jiaqi Li4.   

Abstract

Today, genomic prediction (GP) is an established technology in plant and animal breeding programs. Current standard methods are purely based on statistical considerations but do not make use of the abundant biological knowledge, which is easily available from public databases. Major questions that have to be answered before biological prior information can be used routinely in GP approaches are which types of information can be used, and at which points they can be incorporated into prediction methods. In this study, we propose a novel strategy to incorporate gene annotation into GP of complex phenotypes by defining haploblocks according to gene positions. Haplotype effects are then modeled as categorical or as numerical allele dosage variables. The underlying concept of this approach is to build the statistical model on variables representing the biologically functional units. We evaluate the new methods with data from a heterogeneous stock mouse population, the Drosophila Genetic Reference Panel (DGRP), and a rice breeding population from the Rice Diversity Panel. Our results show that using gene annotation to define haploblocks often leads to a comparable, but for some traits to a higher, predictive ability compared to SNP-based models or to haplotype models that do not use gene annotation information. Modeling gene interaction effects can further improve predictive ability. We also illustrate that the additional use of markers that have not been mapped to any gene in a second separate relatedness matrix does in many cases not lead to a relevant additional increase in predictive ability when the first matrix is based on haploblocks defined with gene annotation data, suggesting that intergenic markers only provide redundant information on the considered data sets. Therefore, gene annotation information seems to be appropriate to perceive the importance of DNA segments. Finally, we discuss the effects of gene annotation quality, marker density, and linkage disequilibrium on the performance of the new methods. To our knowledge, this is the first work that incorporates epistatic interaction or gene annotation into haplotype-based prediction approaches.
Copyright © 2017 by the Genetics Society of America.

Entities:  

Keywords:  GenPred; Shared Data Resources; categorical model; gene annotation; genomic selection; haplotype

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28839043      PMCID: PMC5629318          DOI: 10.1534/genetics.117.300198

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


  46 in total

1.  Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.

Authors:  C R Henderson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 2.571

2.  Genome-wide association and genomic selection in animal breeding.

Authors:  Ben Hayes; Mike Goddard
Journal:  Genome       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.166

3.  Genome-wide genetic association of complex traits in heterogeneous stock mice.

Authors:  William Valdar; Leah C Solberg; Dominique Gauguier; Stephanie Burnett; Paul Klenerman; William O Cookson; Martin S Taylor; J Nicholas P Rawlins; Richard Mott; Jonathan Flint
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2006-07-09       Impact factor: 38.330

4.  Accuracy of genomic selection using different methods to define haplotypes.

Authors:  M P L Calus; T H E Meuwissen; A P W de Roos; R F Veerkamp
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-01       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.  Genome-based prediction of testcross values in maize.

Authors:  Theresa Albrecht; Valentin Wimmer; Hans-Jürgen Auinger; Malena Erbe; Carsten Knaak; Milena Ouzunova; Henner Simianer; Chris-Carolin Schön
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2011-04-20       Impact factor: 5.699

7.  Prediction of genetic values of quantitative traits in plant breeding using pedigree and molecular markers.

Authors:  José Crossa; Gustavo de Los Campos; Paulino Pérez; Daniel Gianola; Juan Burgueño; José Luis Araus; Dan Makumbi; Ravi P Singh; Susanne Dreisigacker; Jianbing Yan; Vivi Arief; Marianne Banziger; Hans-Joachim Braun
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-09-02       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a Barley case study.

Authors:  Shengqiang Zhong; Jack C M Dekkers; Rohan L Fernando; Jean-Luc Jannink
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-03-18       Impact factor: 4.562

9.  The Drosophila melanogaster Genetic Reference Panel.

Authors:  Trudy F C Mackay; Stephen Richards; Eric A Stone; Antonio Barbadilla; Julien F Ayroles; Dianhui Zhu; Sònia Casillas; Yi Han; Michael M Magwire; Julie M Cridland; Mark F Richardson; Robert R H Anholt; Maite Barrón; Crystal Bess; Kerstin Petra Blankenburg; Mary Anna Carbone; David Castellano; Lesley Chaboub; Laura Duncan; Zeke Harris; Mehwish Javaid; Joy Christina Jayaseelan; Shalini N Jhangiani; Katherine W Jordan; Fremiet Lara; Faye Lawrence; Sandra L Lee; Pablo Librado; Raquel S Linheiro; Richard F Lyman; Aaron J Mackey; Mala Munidasa; Donna Marie Muzny; Lynne Nazareth; Irene Newsham; Lora Perales; Ling-Ling Pu; Carson Qu; Miquel Ràmia; Jeffrey G Reid; Stephanie M Rollmann; Julio Rozas; Nehad Saada; Lavanya Turlapati; Kim C Worley; Yuan-Qing Wu; Akihiko Yamamoto; Yiming Zhu; Casey M Bergman; Kevin R Thornton; David Mittelman; Richard A Gibbs
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Accuracy of Genomic Prediction in Switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) Improved by Accounting for Linkage Disequilibrium.

Authors:  Guillaume P Ramstein; Joseph Evans; Shawn M Kaeppler; Robert B Mitchell; Kenneth P Vogel; C Robin Buell; Michael D Casler
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2016-04-07       Impact factor: 3.154

View more
  17 in total

1.  Homeologous Epistasis in Wheat: The Search for an Immortal Hybrid.

Authors:  Nicholas Santantonio; Jean-Luc Jannink; Mark Sorrells
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2019-01-24       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  An Integrative Genomic Prediction Approach for Predicting Buffalo Milk Traits by Incorporating Related Cattle QTLs.

Authors:  Xingjie Hao; Aixin Liang; Graham Plastow; Chunyan Zhang; Zhiquan Wang; Jiajia Liu; Angela Salzano; Bianca Gasparrini; Giuseppe Campanile; Shujun Zhang; Liguo Yang
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2022-08-11       Impact factor: 4.141

Review 3.  Genomic Prediction: Progress and Perspectives for Rice Improvement.

Authors:  Jérôme Bartholomé; Parthiban Thathapalli Prakash; Joshua N Cobb
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

4.  Impact of linkage disequilibrium heterogeneity along the genome on genomic prediction and heritability estimation.

Authors:  Duanyang Ren; Xiaodian Cai; Qing Lin; Haoqiang Ye; Jinyan Teng; Jiaqi Li; Xiangdong Ding; Zhe Zhang
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 5.100

5.  Genomic Prediction Using LD-Based Haplotypes in Combined Pig Populations.

Authors:  Haoqiang Ye; Zipeng Zhang; Duanyang Ren; Xiaodian Cai; Qianghui Zhu; Xiangdong Ding; Hao Zhang; Zhe Zhang; Jiaqi Li
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-06-09       Impact factor: 4.772

6.  Incorporating Omics Data in Genomic Prediction.

Authors:  Johannes W R Martini; Ning Gao; José Crossa
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

7.  An intersection network based on combining SNP coassociation and RNA coexpression networks for feed utilization traits in Japanese Black cattle.

Authors:  Daigo Okada; Satoko Endo; Hirokazu Matsuda; Shinichiro Ogawa; Yukio Taniguchi; Tomohiro Katsuta; Toshio Watanabe; Hiroaki Iwaisaki
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-06-29       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  Opportunities and Challenges of Predictive Approaches for Harnessing the Potential of Genetic Resources.

Authors:  Johannes W R Martini; Terence L Molnar; José Crossa; Sarah J Hearne; Kevin V Pixley
Journal:  Front Plant Sci       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 5.753

9.  From clinics to (cow)mics: a reproductive journey.

Authors:  Patrice Humblot
Journal:  Anim Reprod       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 1.807

Review 10.  Omics Application in Animal Science-A Special Emphasis on Stress Response and Damaging Behaviour in Pigs.

Authors:  Claudia Kasper; David Ribeiro; André M de Almeida; Catherine Larzul; Laurence Liaubet; Eduard Murani
Journal:  Genes (Basel)       Date:  2020-08-11       Impact factor: 4.096

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.