Cargando…

Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset. I: Genomic selection

A dataset was simulated and distributed to participants of the QTLMAS XII workshop who were invited to develop genomic selection models. Each contributing group was asked to describe the model development and validation as well as to submit genomic predictions for three generations of individuals, f...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lund, Mogens Sandø, Sahana, Goutam, de Koning, Dirk-Jan, Su, Guosheng, Carlborg, Örjan
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2654490/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19278535
_version_ 1782165373823483904
author Lund, Mogens Sandø
Sahana, Goutam
de Koning, Dirk-Jan
Su, Guosheng
Carlborg, Örjan
author_facet Lund, Mogens Sandø
Sahana, Goutam
de Koning, Dirk-Jan
Su, Guosheng
Carlborg, Örjan
author_sort Lund, Mogens Sandø
collection PubMed
description A dataset was simulated and distributed to participants of the QTLMAS XII workshop who were invited to develop genomic selection models. Each contributing group was asked to describe the model development and validation as well as to submit genomic predictions for three generations of individuals, for which they only knew the genotypes. The organisers used these genomic predictions to perform the final validation by comparison to the true breeding values, which were known only to the organisers. Methods used by the 5 groups fell in 3 classes 1) fixed effects models 2) BLUP models, and 3) Bayesian MCMC based models. The Bayesian analyses gave the highest accuracies, followed by the BLUP models, while the fixed effects models generally had low accuracies and large error variance. The best BLUP models as well as the best Bayesian models gave unbiased predictions. The BLUP models are clearly sensitive to the assumed SNP variance, because they do not estimate SNP variance, but take the specified variance as the true variance. The current comparison suggests that Bayesian analyses on haplotypes or SNPs are the most promising approach for Genomic selection although the BLUP models may provide a computationally attractive alternative with little loss of efficiency. On the other hand fixed effect type models are unlikely to provide any gain over traditional pedigree indexes for selection.
format Text
id pubmed-2654490
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-26544902009-03-13 Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset. I: Genomic selection Lund, Mogens Sandø Sahana, Goutam de Koning, Dirk-Jan Su, Guosheng Carlborg, Örjan BMC Proc Overview - Dataset Comparison I A dataset was simulated and distributed to participants of the QTLMAS XII workshop who were invited to develop genomic selection models. Each contributing group was asked to describe the model development and validation as well as to submit genomic predictions for three generations of individuals, for which they only knew the genotypes. The organisers used these genomic predictions to perform the final validation by comparison to the true breeding values, which were known only to the organisers. Methods used by the 5 groups fell in 3 classes 1) fixed effects models 2) BLUP models, and 3) Bayesian MCMC based models. The Bayesian analyses gave the highest accuracies, followed by the BLUP models, while the fixed effects models generally had low accuracies and large error variance. The best BLUP models as well as the best Bayesian models gave unbiased predictions. The BLUP models are clearly sensitive to the assumed SNP variance, because they do not estimate SNP variance, but take the specified variance as the true variance. The current comparison suggests that Bayesian analyses on haplotypes or SNPs are the most promising approach for Genomic selection although the BLUP models may provide a computationally attractive alternative with little loss of efficiency. On the other hand fixed effect type models are unlikely to provide any gain over traditional pedigree indexes for selection. BioMed Central 2009-02-23 /pmc/articles/PMC2654490/ /pubmed/19278535 Text en Copyright © 2009 Lund et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 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.
spellingShingle Overview - Dataset Comparison I
Lund, Mogens Sandø
Sahana, Goutam
de Koning, Dirk-Jan
Su, Guosheng
Carlborg, Örjan
Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset. I: Genomic selection
title Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset. I: Genomic selection
title_full Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset. I: Genomic selection
title_fullStr Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset. I: Genomic selection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset. I: Genomic selection
title_short Comparison of analyses of the QTLMAS XII common dataset. I: Genomic selection
title_sort comparison of analyses of the qtlmas xii common dataset. i: genomic selection
topic Overview - Dataset Comparison I
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2654490/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19278535
work_keys_str_mv AT lundmogenssandø comparisonofanalysesoftheqtlmasxiicommondatasetigenomicselection
AT sahanagoutam comparisonofanalysesoftheqtlmasxiicommondatasetigenomicselection
AT dekoningdirkjan comparisonofanalysesoftheqtlmasxiicommondatasetigenomicselection
AT suguosheng comparisonofanalysesoftheqtlmasxiicommondatasetigenomicselection
AT carlborgorjan comparisonofanalysesoftheqtlmasxiicommondatasetigenomicselection