The Accuracy and Bias of Single-Step Genomic Prediction for Populations Under Selection

被引:29
作者
Hsu, Wan-Ling . [1 ]
Garrick, Dorian J. [1 ,2 ]
Fernando, Rohan L. [1 ]
机构
[1] Iowa State Univ, Dept Anim Sci, 225 Kildee Hall, Ames, IA 50011 USA
[2] Massey Univ, Inst Vet Anim & Biomed Sci, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand
基金
美国食品与农业研究所;
关键词
centering genotype covariates; estimated breeding value; genomic prediction; selection single-step; GenPred; Shared Data Resources; Genomic Selection; BAYESIAN METHODS; FULL PEDIGREE; INFORMATION;
D O I
10.1534/g3.117.043596
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
In single-step analyses, missing genotypes are explicitly or implicitly imputed, and this requires centering the observed genotypes using the means of the unselected founders. If genotypes are only available for selected individuals, centering on the unselected founder mean is not straightforward. Here, computer simulation is used to study an alternative analysis that does not require centering genotypes but fits the mean mu(g) of unselected individuals as a fixed effect. Starting with observed diplotypes from 721 cattle, a five-generation population was simulated with sire selection to produce 40,000 individuals with phenotypes, of which the 1000 sires had genotypes. The next generation of 8000 genotyped individuals was used for validation. Evaluations were undertaken with (J) or without (N) mu(g) when marker covariates were not centered; and with (JC) or without (C) mu(g) when all observed and imputed marker covariates were centered. Centering did not influence accuracy of genomic prediction, but fitting mu(g) did. Accuracies were improved when the panel comprised only quantitative trait loci (QTL); models JC and J had accuracies of 99.4%, whereas models C and N had accuracies of 90.2%. When only markers were in the panel, the 4 models had accuracies of 80.4%. In panels that included QTL, fitting mu(g) in the model improved accuracy, but had little impact when the panel contained only markers. In populations undergoing selection, fitting mu(g) in the model is recommended to avoid bias and reduction in prediction accuracy due to selection.
引用
收藏
页码:2685 / 2694
页数:10
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]   Hot topic: A unified approach to utilize phenotypic, full pedigree, and genomic information for genetic evaluation of Holstein final score [J].
Aguilar, I. ;
Misztal, I. ;
Johnson, D. L. ;
Legarra, A. ;
Tsuruta, S. ;
Lawlor, T. J. .
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2010, 93 (02) :743-752
[2]   A fast and efficient Gibbs sampler for BayesB in whole-genome analyses [J].
Cheng, Hao ;
Qu, Long ;
Garrick, Dorian J. ;
Fernando, Rohan L. .
GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2015, 47
[3]   Single-step methods for genomic evaluation in pigs [J].
Christensen, O. F. ;
Madsen, P. ;
Nielsen, B. ;
Ostersen, T. ;
Su, G. .
ANIMAL, 2012, 6 (10) :1565-1571
[4]   Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped [J].
Christensen, Ole F. ;
Lund, Mogens S. .
GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2010, 42
[5]   A class of Bayesian methods to combine large numbers of genotyped and non-genotyped animals for whole-genome analyses [J].
Fernando, Rohan L. ;
Dekkers, Jack C. M. ;
Garrick, Dorian J. .
GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2014, 46
[6]   BAYESIAN METHODS IN ANIMAL BREEDING THEORY [J].
GIANOLA, D ;
FERNANDO, RL .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 1986, 63 (01) :217-244
[7]  
GOFFINET B, 1983, GENET SEL EVOL, V15, P91, DOI 10.1186/1297-9686-15-1-91
[8]  
HENDERSON CR, 1973, AN BREED GEN S HON J, P10
[9]  
Henderson CR, 1984, APPL LINEAR MODELS A
[10]   LIKELIHOOD INFERENCES IN ANIMAL BREEDING UNDER SELECTION - A MISSING-DATA THEORY VIEW POINT [J].
IM, S ;
FERNANDO, RL ;
GIANOLA, D .
GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 1989, 21 (04) :399-414