Volume 8, Issue 18 (3-2018)                   rap 2018, 8(18): 177-186 | Back to browse issues page


XML Persian Abstract Print


Abstract:   (4210 Views)
The aim of this study was to compare different methods of Bayesian (parameteric) approaches for predicting genomic breeding values of traits with different genetic architecture in different distribution of gene effects, number of  quantitative traits loci, heritability and the number of reference population using simulated data. A genome contained 3 chromosomes, with the length of 100 cM and 1000 evenly spaced single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) on each chromosome was simulated. For hypotheses simulation attributes, different distribution of gene effects (uniform, normal and gamma), 3 levels of QTL (50, 200 and 400), 2 levels of heritability (0.16 and 0.5) and 2 levels of the reference population (1000 and 2000) was considered. In order to predict breeding values of individuals in the population of reference and verification, 5 Bayesian methods including Bayes Ridge regression (BRR), A, LASSO (L), Cπ and B were used. As the distance between reference population and selection candidates increased, due to disruption of linkage phase, the accuracy of genomic breeding values in all methods decreased. As heritability increased from 0.16 to 0.5, all methods showed an increase of about 0.2 in accuracy of genomic breeding values. When the number of reference population had increased from 1000 to 2000, all methods showed increased accuracy by nearly 0.18. When the distribution of gene effects was gamma, the Bayes A method showed a clear preference along with both levels of heritability compared with other methods. When the distribution of gene effects was uniform, all methods showed similar accuracy. For high heritability traits, the accuracy of prediction reduced as the number of QTL increased from 50 to 200. Conversly, in low heritability traits, there was no visible influence in accuracy of genomic breeding values.
Full-Text [PDF 4890 kb]   (1920 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research | Subject: Special
Received: 2018/02/28 | Revised: 2018/03/3 | Accepted: 2018/02/28 | Published: 2018/02/28

References
1. Abdollahi-Arpanahi, R., A. Pakdel, A. Nejati-Javaremi and M.M. Shahrbabak. 2013. Comparison of different methods of genomic evolution in traits with different genetic architecture. Journal of Animal Production, 15: 65-77 (In Persian).
2. Baneh, H., A. Nejati-Javaremi, Gh. Rahimi-Mianji and M. Honarvar. 2017. Genomic Evaluation of Thershold Traits with Different Genetic Architecture using Bayesian Approaches. Research on Animal Production, 8: 149-154 (In Persian). [DOI:10.29252/rap.8.15.149]
3. Combs, E. and R. Bernardo. 2012. Accuracy of genome wide selection for different traits with constant population size, heritability, and number of markers. The Plant Genome, 6: 1. [DOI:10.3835/plantgenome2012.11.0030]
4. Daetwyler, HD., MPL. Calus, R. Pong-wong, G. De los Campos and J.M. Hickey. 2013. Genomic prediction in animals and plants: simulation of data, validation, reporting, and benchmarking. Genetics, 193: 347-365. [DOI:10.1534/genetics.112.147983]
5. Daetwyler, H.D., R. Pong-wong, B. Villanueva and J.A. Woolliams. 2010. The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics, 185: 1021-31. [DOI:10.1534/genetics.110.116855]
6. De los Campos, G., J. M. Hickey, R. Pong-Wong, H.D. Daetwyler and M.P. Calus. 2013. Whole-genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics, 193: 327-345. [DOI:10.1534/genetics.112.143313]
7. Ghafouri-Kesbi, F. 2014. Application of machine learning methods in genomic evaluation and studying the effect of genotype imputation on accuracy of genomic breeding values. Ph.D. Thesis, Agriculture and Natural Resources University, Sari, Iran. 81 pp (In Persian). .
8. Goddard, M. 2009. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica, 136: 245-257. [DOI:10.1007/s10709-008-9308-0]
9. Habier, D., RL. Fernando and J.C.M. Dekkers. 2009. Genomic selection using low-density marker panels. Genetics, 182: 343-353. [DOI:10.1534/genetics.108.100289]
10. Habier, D., RL. Fernando, K. Kizilkaya and DJ. Garrick. 2011. Extension of the Bayesian alphabet for genomic selection. BMC Bioinformatics, 12(1): 186 pp. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2105-12-186]
11. Hayes, B. 2007. QTL mapping, MAS, and genomic selection. A short-course.Animal Breeding & Genetics Department of Animal Science. Iowa State University, 3-4.
12. Hayes, B., P. Bowman, A. Chamberlain and M. Goddard. 2009a. Invited review: Genomic selection in dairy cattle: Progress and challenges. Journal of Dairy Science, 92: 433-43. [DOI:10.3168/jds.2008-1646]
13. Hayes, B., P. Bowman, A. Chamberlain, K. Verbyla and M. Goddard. 2009b. Accuracy of genomic breeding values in multi-breed dairy cattle populations. Genetics Sellection Evolution, 41: 51. [DOI:10.1186/1297-9686-41-51]
14. Hayes, BJ., H.D. Daetwyler, P. Bowman, G. Moser, B. Tier, R. Crump, M. Khatkar, H.W. Raadsma, M.E. Goddard. 2010. Accuracy of genomic selection: comparing theory and results. In: Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the Association for the Advancement of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 18: 34-37.
15. Hoerl, A.E. and R.W. Kennard. 1970. Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics, 12(1): 55-67. [DOI:10.1080/00401706.1970.10488634]
16. Meuwissen, TH., B.J. Hayes and M.E. Goddard. 2001. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetic, 157: 1819-1829.
17. Meuwissen, THE. 2013. The accuracy of genomic selection. Available at: nhttp://www.umb.no/statisk/husdyrforsoksmoter/2013/1_1.pdf.
18. Nejati-Javaremi, A., C. Smith and J. Gibson. 1997. Effect of total allelic relationship on accuracy of evaluation and response to selection. Journal of Animal Science, 75: 1738-1745. [DOI:10.2527/1997.7571738x]
19. Park, T. and G. Casella. 2008. The bayesian lasso. American Statistical Association, 103(482): 681-686. [DOI:10.1198/016214508000000337]
20. Perez, P. and G. De los Campos. 2014. Genome-Wide Regression and Prediction with the BGLR Statistical Package. Genetics, 198: 483-495. [DOI:10.1534/genetics.114.164442]
21. Schaeffer, L.R. 2006. Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle. Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 123: 218-223. [DOI:10.1111/j.1439-0388.2006.00595.x]
22. Technow, F.R. 2011. Package hypred: Simulation of genomic data in a pplied genetics. University of Hohenheim.
23. Toosi, A., R. Fernando, J. Dekkers and R. Quaas. 2010. Genomic selection inadmixed and crossbred populations. Journal of Animal Science, 88: 32 pp. [DOI:10.2527/jas.2009-1975]
24. VanRaden, P.M., C.P. Van Tassell and G.R. Wiggans. 2009. Reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. Journal of Dairy Science, 92: 16-24. [DOI:10.3168/jds.2008-1514]

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.