Literature DB >> 29190011

Relevance of genetic relationship in GWAS and genomic prediction.

Helcio Duarte Pereira1, José Marcelo Soriano Viana2, Andréa Carla Bastos Andrade1, Fabyano Fonseca E Silva3, Geísa Pinheiro Paes1.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to analyze the relevance of relationship information on the identification of low heritability quantitative trait loci (QTLs) from a genome-wide association study (GWAS) and on the genomic prediction of complex traits in human, animal and cross-pollinating populations. The simulation-based data sets included 50 samples of 1000 individuals of seven populations derived from a common population with linkage disequilibrium. The populations had non-inbred and inbred progeny structure (50 to 200) with varying number of members (5 to 20). The individuals were genotyped for 10,000 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and phenotyped for a quantitative trait controlled by 10 QTLs and 90 minor genes showing dominance. The SNP density was 0.1 cM and the narrow sense heritability was 25%. The QTL heritabilities ranged from 1.1 to 2.9%. We applied mixed model approaches for both GWAS and genomic prediction using pedigree-based and genomic relationship matrices. For GWAS, the observed false discovery rate was kept below the significance level of 5%, the power of detection for the low heritability QTLs ranged from 14 to 50%, and the average bias between significant SNPs and a QTL ranged from less than 0.01 to 0.23 cM. The QTL detection power was consistently higher using genomic relationship matrix. Regardless of population and training set size, genomic prediction provided higher prediction accuracy of complex trait when compared to pedigree-based prediction. The accuracy of genomic prediction when there is relatedness between individuals in the training set and the reference population is much higher than the value for unrelated individuals.

Entities:  

Keywords:  False discovery rate; Genomic prediction; Mapping precision; Power of QTL detection; Prediction accuracy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29190011     DOI: 10.1007/s13353-017-0417-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Appl Genet        ISSN: 1234-1983            Impact factor:   3.240


  28 in total

Review 1.  The pursuit of genome-wide association studies: where are we now?

Authors:  Chee Seng Ku; En Yun Loy; Yudi Pawitan; Kee Seng Chia
Journal:  J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-03-19       Impact factor: 3.172

2.  Nested association mapping for identification of functional markers.

Authors:  Baohong Guo; David A Sleper; William D Beavis
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-06-15       Impact factor: 4.562

3.  Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response.

Authors:  Mike Goddard
Journal:  Genetica       Date:  2008-08-14       Impact factor: 1.082

4.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

Authors:  P M VanRaden
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.034

5.  Genome properties and prospects of genomic prediction of hybrid performance in a breeding program of maize.

Authors:  Frank Technow; Tobias A Schrag; Wolfgang Schipprack; Eva Bauer; Henner Simianer; Albrecht E Melchinger
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  The effect of linkage disequilibrium and family relationships on the reliability of genomic prediction.

Authors:  Yvonne C J Wientjes; Roel F Veerkamp; Mario P L Calus
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2012-12-24       Impact factor: 4.562

7.  Software for Genome-Wide Association Studies in Autopolyploids and Its Application to Potato.

Authors:  Umesh R Rosyara; Walter S De Jong; David S Douches; Jeffrey B Endelman
Journal:  Plant Genome       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 4.089

8.  The Impact of Genetic Relationship and Linkage Disequilibrium on Genomic Selection.

Authors:  Hongjun Liu; Huangkai Zhou; Yongsheng Wu; Xiao Li; Jing Zhao; Tao Zuo; Xuan Zhang; Yongzhong Zhang; Sisi Liu; Yaou Shen; Haijian Lin; Zhiming Zhang; Kaijian Huang; Thomas Lübberstedt; Guangtang Pan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-06       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Shrinkage estimation of the realized relationship matrix.

Authors:  Jeffrey B Endelman; Jean-Luc Jannink
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 3.154

10.  Prediction of complex human traits using the genomic best linear unbiased predictor.

Authors:  Gustavo de Los Campos; Ana I Vazquez; Rohan Fernando; Yann C Klimentidis; Daniel Sorensen
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2013-07-11       Impact factor: 5.917

View more
  3 in total

1.  Interpretation of Manhattan Plots and Other Outputs of Genome-Wide Association Studies.

Authors:  Jiabo Wang; Jianming Yu; Alexander E Lipka; Zhiwu Zhang
Journal:  Methods Mol Biol       Date:  2022

2.  Cassava yield traits predicted by genomic selection methods.

Authors:  Luciano Rogério Braatz de Andrade; Massaine Bandeira E Sousa; Eder Jorge Oliveira; Marcos Deon Vilela de Resende; Camila Ferreira Azevedo
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Significance of linkage disequilibrium and epistasis on genetic variances in noninbred and inbred populations.

Authors:  José Marcelo Soriano Viana; Antonio Augusto Franco Garcia
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2022-04-09       Impact factor: 3.969

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.