Literature DB >> 35451773

Building a Calibration Set for Genomic Prediction, Characteristics to Be Considered, and Optimization Approaches.

Simon Rio1,2, Alain Charcosset3, Tristan Mary-Huard3, Laurence Moreau4, Renaud Rincent3.   

Abstract

The efficiency of genomic selection strongly depends on the prediction accuracy of the genetic merit of candidates. Numerous papers have shown that the composition of the calibration set is a key contributor to prediction accuracy. A poorly defined calibration set can result in low accuracies, whereas an optimized one can considerably increase accuracy compared to random sampling, for a same size. Alternatively, optimizing the calibration set can be a way of decreasing the costs of phenotyping by enabling similar levels of accuracy compared to random sampling but with fewer phenotypic units. We present here the different factors that have to be considered when designing a calibration set, and review the different criteria proposed in the literature. We classified these criteria into two groups: model-free criteria based on relatedness, and criteria derived from the linear mixed model. We introduce criteria targeting specific prediction objectives including the prediction of highly diverse panels, biparental families, or hybrids. We also review different ways of updating the calibration set, and different procedures for optimizing phenotyping experimental designs.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  CDmean; Calibration population; Genomic selection; Optimization; PEVmean; Prediction accuracy

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35451773     DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-2205-6_3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Methods Mol Biol        ISSN: 1064-3745


  108 in total

1.  Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps.

Authors:  T H Meuwissen; B J Hayes; M E Goddard
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.562

2.  Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.

Authors:  C R Henderson
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1975-06       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  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

4.  Inbreeding in genome-wide selection.

Authors:  H D Daetwyler; B Villanueva; P Bijma; J A Woolliams
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 2.380

Review 5.  Additive genetic variability and the Bayesian alphabet.

Authors:  Daniel Gianola; Gustavo de los Campos; William G Hill; Eduardo Manfredi; Rohan Fernando
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2009-07-20       Impact factor: 4.562

6.  Short communication: Genomic selection using a multi-breed, across-country reference population.

Authors:  J E Pryce; B Gredler; S Bolormaa; P J Bowman; C Egger-Danner; C Fuerst; R Emmerling; J Sölkner; M E Goddard; B J Hayes
Journal:  J Dairy Sci       Date:  2011-05       Impact factor: 4.034

7.  Priors in whole-genome regression: the bayesian alphabet returns.

Authors:  Daniel Gianola
Journal:  Genetics       Date:  2013-05-01       Impact factor: 4.562

8.  Components of the accuracy of genomic prediction in a multi-breed sheep population.

Authors:  H D Daetwyler; K E Kemper; J H J van der Werf; B J Hayes
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 3.159

9.  Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations.

Authors:  Ben J Hayes; Phillip J Bowman; Amanda C Chamberlain; Klara Verbyla; Mike E Goddard
Journal:  Genet Sel Evol       Date:  2009-11-24       Impact factor: 4.297

10.  Genomic prediction for tuberculosis resistance in dairy cattle.

Authors:  Smaragda Tsairidou; John A Woolliams; Adrian R Allen; Robin A Skuce; Stewart H McBride; David M Wright; Mairead L Bermingham; Ricardo Pong-Wong; Oswald Matika; Stanley W J McDowell; Elizabeth J Glass; Stephen C Bishop
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.