Literature DB >> 32995954

Marker genotyping error effects on genomic predictions under different genetic architectures.

Tahere Akbarpour1, Navid Ghavi Hossein-Zadeh2, Abdol Ahad Shadparvar1.   

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the effect of different rates of marker genotyping error on the accuracy of genomic prediction that was examined under distinct marker and quantitative trait loci (QTL) densities and different heritability estimates using a stochastic simulation approach. For each scenario of simulation, a reference population with phenotypic and genotypic records and a validation population with only genotypic records were considered. Marker effects were estimated in the reference population, and then their genotypic records were used to predict genomic breeding values in the validation population. The prediction accuracy was calculated as the correlation between estimated and true breeding values. The prediction bias was examined by computing the regression of true genomic breeding value on estimated genomic breeding value. The accuracy of the genomic evaluation was the highest in a scenario with no marker genotyping error and varied from 0.731 to 0.934. The accuracy of the genomic evaluation was the lowest in a scenario with marker genotyping error equal to 20% and changed from 0.517 to 0.762. The unbiased regression coefficients of true genomic breeding value on estimated genomic breeding value were obtained in the reference and validation populations when the rate of marker genotyping error was equal to zero. The results showed that marker genotyping error can reduce the accuracy of genomic evaluations. Moreover, marker genotyping error can provide biased estimates of genomic breeding values. Therefore, for obtaining accurate results it is recommended to minimize the marker genotyping errors to zero in genomic evaluation programs.

Keywords:  Accuracy; Genomic evaluation; Genotyping error; Linkage disequilibrium; Marker and quantitative trait loci (QTL)

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32995954     DOI: 10.1007/s00438-020-01728-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Genet Genomics        ISSN: 1617-4623            Impact factor:   3.291


  32 in total

1.  A multipoint method for detecting genotyping errors and mutations in sibling-pair linkage data.

Authors:  J A Douglas; M Boehnke; K Lange
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2000-03-28       Impact factor: 11.025

2.  The impact of genotyping error on family-based analysis of quantitative traits.

Authors:  G R Abecasis; S S Cherny; L R Cardon
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 3.  Microsatellite null alleles in parentage analysis.

Authors:  E E Dakin; J C Avise
Journal:  Heredity (Edinb)       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 3.821

4.  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

5.  How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies.

Authors:  A Bonin; E Bellemain; P Bronken Eidesen; F Pompanon; C Brochmann; P Taberlet
Journal:  Mol Ecol       Date:  2004-11       Impact factor: 6.185

6.  A simple and robust TDT-type test against genotyping error with error rates varying across families.

Authors:  K F Cheng; J H Chen
Journal:  Hum Hered       Date:  2007-05-02       Impact factor: 0.444

7.  Accuracy of genomic selection using different methods to define haplotypes.

Authors:  M P L Calus; T H E Meuwissen; A P W de Roos; R F Veerkamp
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Influence of aberrant observations on high-resolution linkage analysis outcomes.

Authors:  K H Buetow
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 11.025

9.  Accuracy of genomic selection in simulated populations mimicking the extent of linkage disequilibrium in beef cattle.

Authors:  Fernanda V Brito; José Braccini Neto; Mehdi Sargolzaei; Jaime A Cobuci; Flavio S Schenkel
Journal:  BMC Genet       Date:  2011-09-20       Impact factor: 2.797

10.  Whole Genome Linkage Disequilibrium and Effective Population Size in a Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Breeding Population Using a High-Density SNP Array.

Authors:  Agustín Barría; Kris A Christensen; Grazyella Yoshida; Ana Jedlicki; Jong S Leong; Eric B Rondeau; Jean P Lhorente; Ben F Koop; William S Davidson; José M Yáñez
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.