Literature DB >> 32980863

Efficient weighting methods for genomic best linear-unbiased prediction (BLUP) adapted to the genetic architectures of quantitative traits.

Duanyang Ren1, Lixia An2, Baojun Li1, Liying Qiao1, Wenzhong Liu3.   

Abstract

Genomic best linear-unbiased prediction (GBLUP) assumes equal variance for all marker effects, which is suitable for traits that conform to the infinitesimal model. For traits controlled by major genes, Bayesian methods with shrinkage priors or genome-wide association study (GWAS) methods can be used to identify causal variants effectively. The information from Bayesian/GWAS methods can be used to construct the weighted genomic relationship matrix (G). However, it remains unclear which methods perform best for traits varying in genetic architecture. Therefore, we developed several methods to optimize the performance of weighted GBLUP and compare them with other available methods using simulated and real data sets. First, two types of methods (marker effects with local shrinkage or normal prior) were used to obtain test statistics and estimates for each marker effect. Second, three weighted G matrices were constructed based on the marker information from the first step: (1) the genomic-feature-weighted G, (2) the estimated marker-variance-weighted G, and (3) the absolute value of the estimated marker-effect-weighted G. Following the above process, six different weighted GBLUP methods (local shrinkage/normal-prior GF/EV/AEWGBLUP) were proposed for genomic prediction. Analyses with both simulated and real data demonstrated that these options offer flexibility for optimizing the weighted GBLUP for traits with a broad spectrum of genetic architectures. The advantage of weighting methods over GBLUP in terms of accuracy was trait dependant, ranging from 14.8% to marginal for simulated traits and from 44% to marginal for real traits. Local-shrinkage prior EVWGBLUP is superior for traits mainly controlled by loci of a large effect. Normal-prior AEWGBLUP performs well for traits mainly controlled by loci of moderate effect. For traits controlled by some loci with large effects (explain 25-50% genetic variance) and a range of loci with small effects, GFWGBLUP has advantages. In conclusion, the optimal weighted GBLUP method for genomic selection should take both the genetic architecture and number of QTLs of traits into consideration carefully.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32980863      PMCID: PMC8027853          DOI: 10.1038/s41437-020-00372-y

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


  50 in total

1.  The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods.

Authors:  Hans D Daetwyler; Ricardo Pong-Wong; Beatriz Villanueva; John A Woolliams
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2010-04-20       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Improving accuracy of genomic predictions within and between dairy cattle breeds with imputed high-density single nucleotide polymorphism panels.

Authors:  M Erbe; B J Hayes; L K Matukumalli; S Goswami; P J Bowman; C M Reich; B A Mason; M E Goddard
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 4.034

Review 3.  The nature, scope and impact of genomic prediction in beef cattle in the United States.

Authors:  Dorian J Garrick
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-05-15       Impact factor: 4.297

4.  Genomic prediction of breeding values using previously estimated SNP variances.

Authors:  Mario Pl Calus; Chris Schrooten; Roel F Veerkamp
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-09-25       Impact factor: 4.297

5.  Different models of genetic variation and their effect on genomic evaluation.

Authors:  Samuel A Clark; John M Hickey; Julius H J van der Werf
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2011-05-17       Impact factor: 4.297

6.  A common dataset for genomic analysis of livestock populations.

Authors:  Matthew A Cleveland; John M Hickey; Selma Forni
Journal:  G3 (Bethesda)       Date:  2012-04-01       Impact factor: 3.154

7.  Improving accuracy of genomic prediction by genetic architecture based priors in a Bayesian model.

Authors:  Ning Gao; Jiaqi Li; Jinlong He; Guang Xiao; Yuanyu Luo; Hao Zhang; Zanmou Chen; Zhe Zhang
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2015-10-14       Impact factor: 2.797

8.  A class of Bayesian methods to combine large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals for whole-genome analyses.

Authors:  Rohan L Fernando; Jack Cm Dekkers; Dorian J Garrick
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2014-09-22       Impact factor: 4.297

9.  Incorporation of causative quantitative trait nucleotides in single-step GBLUP.

Authors:  Breno O Fragomeni; Daniela A L Lourenco; Yutaka Masuda; Andres Legarra; Ignacy Misztal
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2017-07-26       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
  5 in total

1.  Impact of linkage disequilibrium heterogeneity along the genome on genomic prediction and heritability estimation.

Authors:  Duanyang Ren; Xiaodian Cai; Qing Lin; Haoqiang Ye; Jinyan Teng; Jiaqi Li; Xiangdong Ding; Zhe Zhang
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2022-06-27       Impact factor: 5.100

2.  Improvement of Genomic Predictions in Small Breeds by Construction of Genomic Relationship Matrix Through Variable Selection.

Authors:  Enrico Mancin; Lucio Flavio Macedo Mota; Beniamino Tuliozi; Rina Verdiglione; Roberto Mantovani; Cristina Sartori
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 4.772

3.  Improving Genomic Prediction for Seed Quality Traits in Oat (Avena sativa L.) Using Trait-Specific Relationship Matrices.

Authors:  Malachy T Campbell; Haixiao Hu; Trevor H Yeats; Lauren J Brzozowski; Melanie Caffe-Treml; Lucía Gutiérrez; Kevin P Smith; Mark E Sorrells; Michael A Gore; Jean-Luc Jannink
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2021-03-31       Impact factor: 4.599

4.  A pan-Zea genome map for enhancing maize improvement.

Authors:  Songtao Gui; Wenjie Wei; Chenglin Jiang; Jingyun Luo; Lu Chen; Shenshen Wu; Wenqiang Li; Yuebin Wang; Shuyan Li; Ning Yang; Qing Li; Alisdair R Fernie; Jianbing Yan
Journal:  Genome Biol       Date:  2022-08-23       Impact factor: 17.906

Review 5.  Strategies to Increase Prediction Accuracy in Genomic Selection of Complex Traits in Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.).

Authors:  Cesar A Medina; Harpreet Kaur; Ian Ray; Long-Xi Yu
Journal:  Cells       Date:  2021-11-30       Impact factor: 6.600

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.