Literature DB >> 29293736

Efficient single-step genomic evaluation for a multibreed beef cattle population having many genotyped animals.

E A Mäntysaari, R D Evans, I Strandén.   

Abstract

An equivalent computational approach called ssGTBLUP was formulated for the original single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP). In ssGTBLUP, the genomic relationship matrix has the form = ' + , where the (centered and scaled) marker matrix has size x (numbers of genotypes and markers), and the matrix can be easily inverted. The inverse can be written as = - ' where is an by matrix. When the preconditioned conjugate gradient (PCG) method is used to solve the mixed model equations, a matrix vector product needs to be computed. In ssGBLUP, this requires multiplications, but in ssGTBLUP, the product ' has 2 multiplications and has multiplications with the constant independent of or . In an approximate approach called ssGTBLUP(p), the eigendecomposition of ' is used to reduce the number of rows in the matrix. Here, p is the percentage of total variance explained by the accepted eigenvalues. The objective of this study was to compare the performance of ssGBLUP, ssGTBLUP, ssGTBLUP(p), and the APY (algorithm for proven and young) method. In APY, the core had 50,000 (APY50K), 30,000 (APY30K), or 10,000 (APY10K) animals. The approaches were tested on the Irish beef carcass conformation genetic evaluation which has a heterogeneous multibreed population. The pedigree had 13.3 million animals. There were = 54,620 markers available from = 163,277 genotyped animals. For genotyped animals, the correlations of breeding values between ssGBLUP and ssGTBLUP(p) for the 11 traits in the model ranged from 0.999-1.000 for p = 99, 0.998-1.000 for p = 98, and 0.992-0.998 for p = 95 but were 0.994-1.000 for APY50K, 0.969-0.997 for APY30K, and 0.899-0.967 for APY10K. Computing times per iteration were 4.43, 3.30, 2.69, 2.29, 1.55, 1.76, 1.27, and 0.55 min for ssGBLUP, ssGTBLUP, ssGTBLUP(99), ssGTBLUP(98), ssGTBLUP(95), APY50K, APY30K, and APY10K, respectively. The ssGTBLUP(p) approach allowed a well-defined approximation to ssGBLUP and fast computations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29293736      PMCID: PMC6292282          DOI: 10.2527/jas2017.1912

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  19 in total

1.  Solving large mixed linear models using preconditioned conjugate gradient iteration.

Authors:  I Strandén; M Lidauer
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 4.034

2.  Best linear unbiased allele-frequency estimation in complex pedigrees.

Authors:  Mary Sara McPeek; Xiaodong Wu; Carole Ober
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions.

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

4.  Hot topic: a unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score.

Authors:  I Aguilar; I Misztal; D L Johnson; A Legarra; S Tsuruta; T J Lawlor
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.034

5.  Computational strategies for national integration of phenotypic, genomic, and pedigree data in a single-step best linear unbiased prediction.

Authors:  A Legarra; V Ducrocq
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 4.034

6.  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

7.  Genetic parameters for cattle price and body weight from routinely collected data at livestock auctions and commercial farms.

Authors:  N Mc Hugh; R D Evans; P R Amer; A G Fahey; D P Berry
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 3.159

8.  Genetic relationships between carcass cut weights predicted from video image analysis and other performance traits in cattle.

Authors:  T Pabiou; W F Fikse; P R Amer; A R Cromie; A Näsholm; D P Berry
Journal:  Animal       Date:  2012-04-03       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Allele coding in genomic evaluation.

Authors:  Ismo Strandén; Ole F Christensen
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-06-26       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped.

Authors:  Ole F Christensen; Mogens S Lund
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2010-01-27       Impact factor: 4.297

View more
  12 in total

1.  Sparse single-step genomic BLUP in crossbreeding schemes.

Authors:  Jérémie Vandenplas; Mario P L Calus; Jan Ten Napel
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-06-04       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Genomic predictions in purebreds with a multibreed genomic relationship matrix1.

Authors:  Yvette Steyn; Daniela A L Lourenco; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-11-04       Impact factor: 3.159

3.  Computational strategies for the preconditioned conjugate gradient method applied to ssSNPBLUP, with an application to a multivariate maternal model.

Authors:  Jeremie Vandenplas; Herwin Eding; Maarten Bosmans; Mario P L Calus
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2020-05-13       Impact factor: 4.297

4.  On the equivalence between marker effect models and breeding value models and direct genomic values with the Algorithm for Proven and Young.

Authors:  Matias Bermann; Daniela Lourenco; Natalia S Forneris; Andres Legarra; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2022-07-16       Impact factor: 5.100

5.  Deflated preconditioned conjugate gradient method for solving single-step BLUP models efficiently.

Authors:  Jérémie Vandenplas; Herwin Eding; Mario P L Calus; Cornelis Vuik
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2018-11-03       Impact factor: 4.297

6.  Estimating variance components in population scale family trees.

Authors:  Tal Shor; Iris Kalka; Dan Geiger; Yaniv Erlich; Omer Weissbrod
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2019-05-09       Impact factor: 5.917

7.  More animals than markers: a study into the application of the single step T-BLUP model in large-scale multi-trait Australian Angus beef cattle genetic evaluation.

Authors:  Vinzent Boerner; David J Johnston
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2019-10-16       Impact factor: 4.297

8.  Improving the accuracy of genomic evaluation for linear body measurement traits using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction in Hanwoo beef cattle.

Authors:  Masoumeh Naserkheil; Deuk Hwan Lee; Hossein Mehrban
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2020-12-02       Impact factor: 2.797

9.  Convergence behavior of single-step GBLUP and SNPBLUP for different termination criteria.

Authors:  Jeremie Vandenplas; Mario P L Calus; Herwin Eding; Mathijs van Pelt; Rob Bergsma; Cornelis Vuik
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Reduced Animal Models Fitting Only Equations for Phenotyped Animals.

Authors:  Mohammad Ali Nilforooshan; Dorian Garrick
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.