Literature DB >> 29167557

Factors affecting GEBV accuracy with single-step Bayesian models.

Lei Zhou1, Raphael Mrode2, Shengli Zhang1,2,3, Qin Zhang1, Bugao Li3, Jian-Feng Liu4.   

Abstract

A single-step approach to obtain genomic prediction was first proposed in 2009. Many studies have investigated the components of GEBV accuracy in genomic selection. However, it is still unclear how the population structure and the relationships between training and validation populations influence GEBV accuracy in terms of single-step analysis. Here, we explored the components of GEBV accuracy in single-step Bayesian analysis with a simulation study. Three scenarios with various numbers of QTL (5, 50, and 500) were simulated. Three models were implemented to analyze the simulated data: single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP; SSGBLUP), single-step BayesA (SS-BayesA), and single-step BayesB (SS-BayesB). According to our results, GEBV accuracy was influenced by the relationships between the training and validation populations more significantly for ungenotyped animals than for genotyped animals. SS-BayesA/BayesB showed an obvious advantage over SSGBLUP with the scenarios of 5 and 50 QTL. SS-BayesB model obtained the lowest accuracy with the 500 QTL in the simulation. SS-BayesA model was the most efficient and robust considering all QTL scenarios. Generally, both the relationships between training and validation populations and LD between markers and QTL contributed to GEBV accuracy in the single-step analysis, and the advantages of single-step Bayesian models were more apparent when the trait is controlled by fewer QTL.

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29167557      PMCID: PMC5837114          DOI: 10.1038/s41437-017-0010-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)        ISSN: 0018-067X            Impact factor:   3.821


  26 in total

1.  Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps.

Authors:  T H Meuwissen; B J Hayes; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs.

Authors:  O F Christensen; P Madsen; B Nielsen; T Ostersen; G Su
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2012-04-05       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Increased accuracy of artificial selection by using the realized relationship matrix.

Authors:  B J Hayes; P M Visscher; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2009-02       Impact factor: 1.588

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

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

Review 5.  Additive genetic variability and the Bayesian alphabet.

Authors:  Daniel Gianola; Gustavo de los Campos; William G Hill; Eduardo Manfredi; Rohan Fernando
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-07-20       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Bias in genomic predictions for populations under selection.

Authors:  Z G Vitezica; I Aguilar; I Misztal; A Legarra
Journal:  Genet Res (Camb)       Date:  2011-07-18       Impact factor: 1.588

7.  Incorporating the single-step strategy into a random regression model to enhance genomic prediction of longitudinal traits.

Authors:  H Kang; L Zhou; R Mrode; Q Zhang; J-F Liu
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2016-12-28       Impact factor: 3.821

8.  Using recursion to compute the inverse of the genomic relationship matrix.

Authors:  I Misztal; A Legarra; I Aguilar
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2014-03-27       Impact factor: 4.034

9.  Components of the accuracy of genomic prediction in a multi-breed sheep population.

Authors:  H D Daetwyler; K E Kemper; J H J van der Werf; B J Hayes
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.159

10.  The impact of genetic relationship information on genomic breeding values in German Holstein cattle.

Authors:  David Habier; Jens Tetens; Franz-Reinhold Seefried; Peter Lichtner; Georg Thaller
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2010-02-19       Impact factor: 4.297

View more
  5 in total

1.  Genomic Prediction Accuracy of Stripe Rust in Six Spring Wheat Populations by Modeling Genotype by Environment Interaction.

Authors:  Kassa Semagn; Muhammad Iqbal; Diego Jarquin; Harpinder Randhawa; Reem Aboukhaddour; Reka Howard; Izabela Ciechanowska; Momna Farzand; Raman Dhariwal; Colin W Hiebert; Amidou N'Diaye; Curtis Pozniak; Dean Spaner
Journal:  Plants (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-30

2.  Genome-based prediction of agronomic traits in spring wheat under conventional and organic management systems.

Authors:  Kassa Semagn; Muhammad Iqbal; José Crossa; Diego Jarquin; Reka Howard; Hua Chen; Darcy H Bemister; Brian L Beres; Harpinder Randhawa; Amidou N'Diaye; Curtis Pozniak; Dean Spaner
Journal:  Theor Appl Genet       Date:  2021-11-01       Impact factor: 5.699

3.  Multi-trait single-step genomic prediction accounting for heterogeneous (co)variances over the genome.

Authors:  Emre Karaman; Mogens S Lund; Guosheng Su
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2019-10-22       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  Efficient Estimation of Marker Effects in Plant Breeding.

Authors:  Alencar Xavier
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2019-11-05       Impact factor: 3.154

5.  Impact of genotypic errors with equal and unequal family contribution on accuracy of genomic prediction in aquaculture using simulation.

Authors:  N Khalilisamani; P C Thomson; H W Raadsma; M S Khatkar
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-09-15       Impact factor: 4.379

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.