Literature DB >> 29178316

A comparison of accuracy validation methods for genomic and pedigree-based predictions of swine litter size traits using Large White and simulated data.

A M Putz1, F Tiezzi1, C Maltecca1, K A Gray2, M T Knauer1.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare and determine the optimal validation method when comparing accuracy from single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) to traditional pedigree-based BLUP. Field data included six litter size traits. Simulated data included ten replicates designed to mimic the field data in order to determine the method that was closest to the true accuracy. Data were split into training and validation sets. The methods used were as follows: (i) theoretical accuracy derived from the prediction error variance (PEV) of the direct inverse (iLHS), (ii) approximated accuracies from the accf90(GS) program in the BLUPF90 family of programs (Approx), (iii) correlation between predictions and the single-step GEBVs from the full data set (GEBVFull ), (iv) correlation between predictions and the corrected phenotypes of females from the full data set (Yc ), (v) correlation from method iv divided by the square root of the heritability (Ych ) and (vi) correlation between sire predictions and the average of their daughters' corrected phenotypes (Ycs ). Accuracies from iLHS increased from 0.27 to 0.37 (37%) in the Large White. Approximation accuracies were very consistent and close in absolute value (0.41 to 0.43). Both iLHS and Approx were much less variable than the corrected phenotype methods (ranging from 0.04 to 0.27). On average, simulated data showed an increase in accuracy from 0.34 to 0.44 (29%) using ssGBLUP. Both iLHS and Ych approximated the increase well, 0.30 to 0.46 and 0.36 to 0.45, respectively. GEBVFull performed poorly in both data sets and is not recommended. Results suggest that for within-breed selection, theoretical accuracy using PEV was consistent and accurate. When direct inversion is infeasible to get the PEV, correlating predictions to the corrected phenotypes divided by the square root of heritability is adequate given a large enough validation data set.
© 2017 Blackwell Verlag GmbH.

Entities:  

Keywords:  accuracy comparison; accuracy validation; litter size; piglet mortality; single-step GBLUP

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29178316     DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12302

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


  6 in total

1.  Semi-parametric estimates of population accuracy and bias of predictions of breeding values and future phenotypes using the LR method.

Authors:  Andres Legarra; Antonio Reverter
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2018-11-06       Impact factor: 4.297

2.  The genetic connectedness calculated from genomic information and its effect on the accuracy of genomic prediction.

Authors:  Suo-Yu Zhang; Babatunde Shittu Olasege; Deng-Ying Liu; Qi-Shan Wang; Yu-Chun Pan; Pei-Pei Ma
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Opportunities for genomic selection in American mink: A simulation study.

Authors:  Karim Karimi; Mehdi Sargolzaei; Graham Stuart Plastow; Zhiquan Wang; Younes Miar
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-14       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Application of single-step genomic evaluation using social genetic effect model for growth in pig.

Authors:  Joon Ki Hong; Young Sin Kim; Kyu Ho Cho; Deuk Hwan Lee; Ye Jin Min; Eun Seok Cho
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-08-26       Impact factor: 2.509

5.  Optimized grouping to increase accuracy of prediction of breeding values based on group records in genomic selection breeding programs.

Authors:  Thinh T Chu; John W M Bastiaansen; Peer Berg; Hans Komen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 4.297

6.  Genetic analysis of egg production traits in turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) using a single-step genomic random regression model.

Authors:  Hakimeh Emamgholi Begli; Lawrence R Schaeffer; Emhimad Abdalla; Emmanuel A Lozada-Soto; Alexandra Harlander-Matauschek; Benjamin J Wood; Christine F Baes
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 4.297

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.