Weighting Strategies for Single-Step Genomic BLUP:An Iterative Approach for Accurate Calculation of GEBV and GWAS

被引:138
作者
Zhang, Xinyue [1 ]
Lourenco, Daniela [1 ]
Aguilar, Ignacio [2 ]
Legarra, Andres [3 ]
Ignacy, Misztal [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Georgia, Anim Breeding & Genet, Anim & Dairy Sci, Athens, GA 30602 USA
[2] Natl Agr Res Inst, Las Brujas, Uruguay
[3] INRA, GenPhySE UMR1388, Castanet Tolosan, France
基金
美国食品与农业研究所;
关键词
genome-wide association; SNP window; WssGBLUP; BayesB; BayesC; MAPPING INCLUDING PHENOTYPES; ESTIMATED BREEDING VALUES; WIDE ASSOCIATION; RELATIONSHIP MATRICES; GENETIC EVALUATION; BROILER-CHICKENS; FULL PEDIGREE; INFORMATION; SELECTION; PREDICTIONS;
D O I
10.3389/fgene.2016.00151
中图分类号
Q3 [遗传学];
学科分类号
071007 ; 090102 ;
摘要
Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Predictor (GBLUP) assumes equal variance for all single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP). When traits are influenced by major SNP, Bayesian methods have the advantage of SNP selection. To overcome the limitation of GBLUP, unequal variance or weights for all SNP are applied in a method called weighted GBLUP (WGBLUP). If only a fraction of animals is genotyped, single-step WGBLUP (WssGBLUP) can be used. Default weights in WGBLUP or WssGBLUP are obtained iteratively based on single SNP effect squared (u(2)) and/or heterozygosity. When the weights are optimal, prediction accuracy, and ability to detect major SNP are maximized. The objective was to develop optimal weights for WGBLUP-based methods. We evaluated 5 new procedures that accounted for locus-specific or windows-specific variance to maximize accuracy of predicting genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) and SNP effect. Simulated datasets consisted of phenotypes for 13,000 animals, including 1540 animals genotyped for 45,000 SNP Scenarios with 5, 100, and 500 simulated quantitative trait loci (QTL) were considered. The 5 new procedures for SNP weighting were: (1) u2 plus a constant equal to the weight of the top SNP; (2) from a heavy-tailed distribution (similar to BayesA); (3) for every 20 SNP in a window along the whole genome, the largest effect ( u2) among them; (4) the mean effect of every 20 SNP; and (5) the summation of every 20 SNP. Those methods were compared to the default WssGBLUP, GBLUP, BayesB, and BayesC. WssGBLUP methods were evaluated over 10 iterations. The accuracy of predicting GEBV was the correlation between true and estimated genomic breeding values for 300 genotyped animals from the last generation. The ability to detect the simulated QTL was also investigated. For most of the QTL scenarios, the accuracies obtained with all WssGBLUP procedures were higher compared to those from BayesB and BayesC, partly due to automatic inclusion of parent average in the former. Manhattan plots had higher resolution with 5 and 100 QTL. Using a common weight for a window of 20 SNP that sums or averages the SNP variance enhances accuracy of predicting GEBV and provides accurate estimation of marker effects.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 43 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]   Accuracy of breeding values when using and ignoring the polygenic effect in genomic breeding value estimation with a marker density of one SNP per cM [J].
Calus, M. P. L. ;
Veerkamp, R. F. .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS, 2007, 124 (06) :362-368
[3]   Genome-wide marker-assisted selection combining all pedigree phenotypic information with genotypic data in one step: An example using broiler chickens [J].
Chen, C. Y. ;
Misztal, I. ;
Aguilar, I. ;
Tsuruta, S. ;
Meuwissen, T. H. E. ;
Aggrey, S. E. ;
Wing, T. ;
Muir, W. M. .
JOURNAL OF ANIMAL SCIENCE, 2011, 89 (01) :23-28
[4]   Genomic prediction when some animals are not genotyped [J].
Christensen, Ole F. ;
Lund, Mogens S. .
GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2010, 42
[5]   Distribution and location of genetic effects for dairy traits [J].
Cole, J. B. ;
VanRaden, P. M. ;
O'Connell, J. R. ;
Van Tassell, C. P. ;
Sonstegard, T. S. ;
Schnabel, R. D. ;
Taylor, J. F. ;
Wiggans, G. R. .
JOURNAL OF DAIRY SCIENCE, 2009, 92 (06) :2931-2946
[6]   The Impact of Genetic Architecture on Genome-Wide Evaluation Methods [J].
Daetwyler, Hans D. ;
Pong-Wong, Ricardo ;
Villanueva, Beatriz ;
Woolliams, John A. .
GENETICS, 2010, 185 (03) :1021-1031
[7]  
Fernando R., 2009, GENSEL USERMANUAL MA
[8]   Different genomic relationship matrices for single-step analysis using phenotypic, pedigree and genomic information [J].
Forni, Selma ;
Aguilar, Ignacio ;
Misztal, Ignacy .
GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2011, 43
[9]   Comparison on genomic predictions using three GBLUP methods and two single-step blending methods in the Nordic Holstein population [J].
Gao, Hongding ;
Christensen, Ole F. ;
Madsen, Per ;
Nielsen, Ulrik S. ;
Zhang, Yuan ;
Lund, Mogens S. ;
Su, Guosheng .
GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2012, 44
[10]   Deregressing estimated breeding values and weighting information for genomic regression analyses [J].
Garrick, Dorian J. ;
Taylor, Jeremy F. ;
Fernando, Rohan L. .
GENETICS SELECTION EVOLUTION, 2009, 41