Beatriz C D Cuyabano1, A Christian Sørensen2, Peter Sørensen2. 1. Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, Postboks 50, 8830, Tjele, Denmark. bia.cdc@gmail.com. 2. Center for Quantitative Genetics and Genomics, Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics, Aarhus University, Blichers Allé 20, Postboks 50, 8830, Tjele, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Genomic models that link phenotypes to dense genotype information are increasingly being used for infering variance parameters in genetics studies. The variance parameters of these models can be inferred using restricted maximum likelihood, which produces consistent, asymptotically normal estimates of variance components under the true model. These properties are not guaranteed to hold when the covariance structure of the data specified by the genomic model differs substantially from the covariance structure specified by the true model, and in this case, the likelihood of the model is said to be misspecified. If the covariance structure specified by the genomic model provides a poor description of that specified by the true model, the likelihood misspecification may lead to incorrect inferences. RESULTS: This work provides a theoretical analysis of the genomic models based on splitting the misspecified likelihood equations into components, which isolate those that contribute to incorrect inferences, providing an informative measure, defined as [Formula: see text], to compare the covariance structure of the data specified by the genomic and the true models. This comparison of the covariance structures allows us to determine whether or not bias in the variance components estimates is expected to occur. CONCLUSIONS: The theory presented can be used to provide an explanation for the success of a number of recently reported approaches that are suggested to remove sources of bias of heritability estimates. Furthermore, however complex is the quantification of this bias, we can determine that, in genomic models that consider a single genomic component to estimate heritability (assuming SNP effects are all i.i.d.), the bias of the estimator tends to be downward, when it exists.
BACKGROUND: Genomic models that link phenotypes to dense genotype information are increasingly being used for infering variance parameters in genetics studies. The variance parameters of these models can be inferred using restricted maximum likelihood, which produces consistent, asymptotically normal estimates of variance components under the true model. These properties are not guaranteed to hold when the covariance structure of the data specified by the genomic model differs substantially from the covariance structure specified by the true model, and in this case, the likelihood of the model is said to be misspecified. If the covariance structure specified by the genomic model provides a poor description of that specified by the true model, the likelihood misspecification may lead to incorrect inferences. RESULTS: This work provides a theoretical analysis of the genomic models based on splitting the misspecified likelihood equations into components, which isolate those that contribute to incorrect inferences, providing an informative measure, defined as [Formula: see text], to compare the covariance structure of the data specified by the genomic and the true models. This comparison of the covariance structures allows us to determine whether or not bias in the variance components estimates is expected to occur. CONCLUSIONS: The theory presented can be used to provide an explanation for the success of a number of recently reported approaches that are suggested to remove sources of bias of heritability estimates. Furthermore, however complex is the quantification of this bias, we can determine that, in genomic models that consider a single genomic component to estimate heritability (assuming SNP effects are all i.i.d.), the bias of the estimator tends to be downward, when it exists.
Authors: Siddharth Krishna Kumar; Marcus W Feldman; David H Rehkopf; Shripad Tuljapurkar Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2015-12-22 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Jian Yang; Beben Benyamin; Brian P McEvoy; Scott Gordon; Anjali K Henders; Dale R Nyholt; Pamela A Madden; Andrew C Heath; Nicholas G Martin; Grant W Montgomery; Michael E Goddard; Peter M Visscher Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2010-06-20 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Ulrike Ober; Julien F Ayroles; Eric A Stone; Stephen Richards; Dianhui Zhu; Richard A Gibbs; Christian Stricker; Daniel Gianola; Martin Schlather; Trudy F C Mackay; Henner Simianer Journal: PLoS Genet Date: 2012-05-03 Impact factor: 5.917
Authors: Esteban J Jurcic; Pamela V Villalba; Pablo S Pathauer; Dino A Palazzini; Gustavo P J Oberschelp; Leonel Harrand; Martín N Garcia; Natalia C Aguirre; Cintia V Acuña; María C Martínez; Juan G Rivas; Esteban F Cisneros; Juan A López; Susana N Marcucci Poltri; Sebastián Munilla; Eduardo P Cappa Journal: Heredity (Edinb) Date: 2021-06-18 Impact factor: 3.832
Authors: Irene van den Berg; Phuong N Ho; Tuan V Nguyen; Mekonnen Haile-Mariam; Iona M MacLeod; Phil R Beatson; Erin O'Connor; Jennie E Pryce Journal: Genet Sel Evol Date: 2022-02-19 Impact factor: 4.297