107
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Extension of the bayesian alphabet for genomic selection

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Two Bayesian methods, BayesC π and BayesD π, were developed for genomic prediction to address the drawback of BayesA and BayesB regarding the impact of prior hyperparameters and treat the prior probability π that a SNP has zero effect as unknown. The methods were compared in terms of inference of the number of QTL and accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs), using simulated scenarios and real data from North American Holstein bulls.

          Results

          Estimates of π from BayesC π, in contrast to BayesD π, were sensitive to the number of simulated QTL and training data size, and provide information about genetic architecture. Milk yield and fat yield have QTL with larger effects than protein yield and somatic cell score. The drawback of BayesA and BayesB did not impair the accuracy of GEBVs. Accuracies of alternative Bayesian methods were similar. BayesA was a good choice for GEBV with the real data. Computing time was shorter for BayesC π than for BayesD π, and longest for our implementation of BayesA.

          Conclusions

          Collectively, accounting for computing effort, uncertainty as to the number of QTL (which affects the GEBV accuracy of alternative methods), and fundamental interest in the number of QTL underlying quantitative traits, we believe that BayesC π has merit for routine applications.

          Related collections

          Most cited references9

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Best linear unbiased estimation and prediction under a selection model.

          Mixed linear models are assumed in most animal breeding applications. Convenient methods for computing BLUE of the estimable linear functions of the fixed elements of the model and for computing best linear unbiased predictions of the random elements of the model have been available. Most data available to animal breeders, however, do not meet the usual requirements of random sampling, the problem being that the data arise either from selection experiments or from breeders' herds which are undergoing selection. Consequently, the usual methods are likely to yield biased estimates and predictions. Methods for dealing with such data are presented in this paper.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Additive genetic variability and the Bayesian alphabet.

            The use of all available molecular markers in statistical models for prediction of quantitative traits has led to what could be termed a genomic-assisted selection paradigm in animal and plant breeding. This article provides a critical review of some theoretical and statistical concepts in the context of genomic-assisted genetic evaluation of animals and crops. First, relationships between the (Bayesian) variance of marker effects in some regression models and additive genetic variance are examined under standard assumptions. Second, the connection between marker genotypes and resemblance between relatives is explored, and linkages between a marker-based model and the infinitesimal model are reviewed. Third, issues associated with the use of Bayesian models for marker-assisted selection, with a focus on the role of the priors, are examined from a theoretical angle. The sensitivity of a Bayesian specification that has been proposed (called "Bayes A") with respect to priors is illustrated with a simulation. Methods that can solve potential shortcomings of some of these Bayesian regression procedures are discussed briefly.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

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

              Background Two key findings from genomic selection experiments are 1) the reference population used must be very large to subsequently predict accurate genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV), and 2) prediction equations derived in one breed do not predict accurate GEBV when applied to other breeds. Both findings are a problem for breeds where the number of individuals in the reference population is limited. A multi-breed reference population is a potential solution, and here we investigate the accuracies of GEBV in Holstein dairy cattle and Jersey dairy cattle when the reference population is single breed or multi-breed. The accuracies were obtained both as a function of elements of the inverse coefficient matrix and from the realised accuracies of GEBV. Methods Best linear unbiased prediction with a multi-breed genomic relationship matrix (GBLUP) and two Bayesian methods (BAYESA and BAYES_SSVS) which estimate individual SNP effects were used to predict GEBV for 400 and 77 young Holstein and Jersey bulls respectively, from a reference population of 781 and 287 Holstein and Jersey bulls, respectively. Genotypes of 39,048 SNP markers were used. Phenotypes in the reference population were de-regressed breeding values for production traits. For the GBLUP method, expected accuracies calculated from the diagonal of the inverse of coefficient matrix were compared to realised accuracies. Results When GBLUP was used, expected accuracies from a function of elements of the inverse coefficient matrix agreed reasonably well with realised accuracies calculated from the correlation between GEBV and EBV in single breed populations, but not in multi-breed populations. When the Bayesian methods were used, realised accuracies of GEBV were up to 13% higher when the multi-breed reference population was used than when a pure breed reference was used. However no consistent increase in accuracy across traits was obtained. Conclusion Predicting genomic breeding values using a genomic relationship matrix is an attractive approach to implement genomic selection as expected accuracies of GEBV can be readily derived. However in multi-breed populations, Bayesian approaches give higher accuracies for some traits. Finally, multi-breed reference populations will be a valuable resource to fine map QTL.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMC Bioinformatics
                BMC Bioinformatics
                BioMed Central
                1471-2105
                2011
                23 May 2011
                : 12
                : 186
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Animal Science and Center for Integrated Animal Genomics, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
                [2 ]Department of Animal Science, Adnan Menderes University, Aydin 09100, Turkey
                [3 ]Institute of Veterinary, Animal & Biomedical Science, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand
                Article
                1471-2105-12-186
                10.1186/1471-2105-12-186
                3144464
                21605355
                2766bc28-db07-481b-8fbf-f171cf523e22
                Copyright ©2011 Habier et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 1 July 2010
                : 23 May 2011
                Categories
                Research Article

                Bioinformatics & Computational biology
                Bioinformatics & Computational biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article