Genome-wide association mapping including phenotypes from relatives without genotypes

被引:428
作者
Wang, H. [1 ]
Misztal, I. [1 ]
Aguilar, I. [2 ]
Legarra, A. [3 ]
Muir, W. M. [4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Georgia, Dept Anim & Dairy Sci, Athens, GA 30602 USA
[2] INIA Brujas, Inst Nacl Invest Agr, Canelones 90200, Uruguay
[3] INRA, UR631, SAGA, F-32326 Castanet Tolosan, France
[4] Purdue Univ, Dept Anim Sci, W Lafayette, IN 47907 USA
基金
美国食品与农业研究所;
关键词
FULL PEDIGREE; RELATIONSHIP MATRICES; GENETIC EVALUATION; COMPLEX TRAITS; PREDICTIONS; INFORMATION; ANIMALS; LENGTH;
D O I
10.1017/S0016672312000274
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
A common problem for genome-wide association analysis (GWAS) is lack of power for detection of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) and precision for fine mapping. Here, we present a statistical method, termed single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP), which increases both power and precision without increasing genotyping costs by taking advantage of phenotypes from other related and unrelated subjects. The procedure achieves these goals by blending traditional pedigree relationships with those derived from genetic markers, and by conversion of estimated breeding values (EBVs) to marker effects and weights. Additionally, the application of mixed model approaches allow for both simple and complex analyses that involve multiple traits and confounding factors, such as environmental, epigenetic or maternal environmental effects. Efficiency of the method was examined using simulations with 15 800 subjects, of which 1500 were genotyped. Thirty QTLs were simulated across genome and assumed heritability was 0.5. Comparisons included ssGBLUP applied directly to phenotypes, BayesB and classical GWAS (CGWAS) with deregressed proofs. An average accuracy of prediction 0.89 was obtained by ssGBLUP after one iteration, which was 0.01 higher than by BayesB. Power and precision for GWAS applications were evaluated by the correlation between true QTL effects and the sum of m adjacent single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) effects. The highest correlations were 0.82 and 0.74 for ssGBLUP and CGWAS with m=8, and 0.83 for BayesB with m=16. Standard deviations of the correlations across replicates were several times higher in BayesB than in ssGBLUP. The ssGBLUP method with marker weights is faster, more accurate and easier to implement for GWAS applications without computing pseudo-data.
引用
收藏
页码:73 / 83
页数:11
相关论文
共 39 条
  • [1] Efficient computation of the genomic relationship matrix and other matrices used in single-step evaluation
    Aguilar, I.
    Misztal, I.
    Legarra, A.
    Tsuruta, S.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2011, 128 (06) : 422 - 428
  • [2] Hot topic: A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score
    Aguilar, I.
    Misztal, I.
    Johnson, D. L.
    Legarra, A.
    Tsuruta, S.
    Lawlor, T. J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2010, 93 (02) : 743 - 752
  • [3] A high-resolution association mapping panel for the dissection of complex traits in mice
    Bennett, Brian J.
    Farber, Charles R.
    Orozco, Luz
    Kang, Hyun Min
    Ghazalpour, Anatole
    Siemers, Nathan
    Neubauer, Michael
    Neuhaus, Isaac
    Yordanova, Roumyana
    Guan, Bo
    Truong, Amy
    Yang, Wen-pin
    He, Aiqing
    Kayne, Paul
    Gargalovic, Peter
    Kirchgessner, Todd
    Pan, Calvin
    Castellani, Lawrence W.
    Kostem, Emrah
    Furlotte, Nicholas
    Drake, Thomas A.
    Eskin, Eleazar
    Lusis, Aldons J.
    [J]. GENOME RESEARCH, 2010, 20 (02) : 281 - 290
  • [4] Multivariate analysis of a genome-wide association study in dairy cattle
    Bolormaa, S.
    Pryce, J. E.
    Hayes, B. J.
    Goddard, M. E.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2010, 93 (08) : 3818 - 3833
  • [5] Effect of different genomic relationship matrices on accuracy and scale
    Chen, C. Y.
    Misztal, I.
    Aguilar, I.
    Legarra, A.
    Muir, W. M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2011, 89 (09) : 2673 - 2679
  • [6] Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped
    Christensen, Ole F.
    Lund, Mogens S.
    [J]. GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2010, 42
  • [7] Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information
    Forni, Selma
    Aguilar, Ignacio
    Misztal, Ignacy
    [J]. GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2011, 43
  • [8] Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses
    Garrick, Dorian J.
    Taylor, Jeremy F.
    Fernando, Rohan L.
    [J]. GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2009, 41
  • [9] Additive Genetic Variability and the Bayesian Alphabet
    Gianola, Daniel
    de los Campos, Gustavo
    Hill, William G.
    Manfredi, Eduardo
    Fernando, Rohan
    [J]. GENETICS, 2009, 183 (01) : 347 - 363
  • [10] Mapping genes for complex traits in domestic animals and their use in breeding programmes
    Goddard, Michael E.
    Hayes, Ben J.
    [J]. NATURE REVIEWS GENETICS, 2009, 10 (06) : 381 - 391