Cargando…
A comparison of alternative methods to compute conditional genotype probabilities for genetic evaluation with finite locus models
An increased availability of genotypes at marker loci has prompted the development of models that include the effect of individual genes. Selection based on these models is known as marker-assisted selection (MAS). MAS is known to be efficient especially for traits that have low heritability and non...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2003
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698000/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14604509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-35-7-585 |
_version_ | 1782168360165834752 |
---|---|
author | Totir, Liviu R Fernando, Rohan L Dekkers, Jack CM Fernández, Soledad A Guldbrandtsen, Bernt |
author_facet | Totir, Liviu R Fernando, Rohan L Dekkers, Jack CM Fernández, Soledad A Guldbrandtsen, Bernt |
author_sort | Totir, Liviu R |
collection | PubMed |
description | An increased availability of genotypes at marker loci has prompted the development of models that include the effect of individual genes. Selection based on these models is known as marker-assisted selection (MAS). MAS is known to be efficient especially for traits that have low heritability and non-additive gene action. BLUP methodology under non-additive gene action is not feasible for large inbred or crossbred pedigrees. It is easy to incorporate non-additive gene action in a finite locus model. Under such a model, the unobservable genotypic values can be predicted using the conditional mean of the genotypic values given the data. To compute this conditional mean, conditional genotype probabilities must be computed. In this study these probabilities were computed using iterative peeling, and three Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods – scalar Gibbs, blocking Gibbs, and a sampler that combines the Elston Stewart algorithm with iterative peeling (ESIP). The performance of these four methods was assessed using simulated data. For pedigrees with loops, iterative peeling fails to provide accurate genotype probability estimates for some pedigree members. Also, computing time is exponentially related to the number of loci in the model. For MCMC methods, a linear relationship can be maintained by sampling genotypes one locus at a time. Out of the three MCMC methods considered, ESIP, performed the best while scalar Gibbs performed the worst. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2698000 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2003 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-26980002009-06-18 A comparison of alternative methods to compute conditional genotype probabilities for genetic evaluation with finite locus models Totir, Liviu R Fernando, Rohan L Dekkers, Jack CM Fernández, Soledad A Guldbrandtsen, Bernt Genet Sel Evol Research An increased availability of genotypes at marker loci has prompted the development of models that include the effect of individual genes. Selection based on these models is known as marker-assisted selection (MAS). MAS is known to be efficient especially for traits that have low heritability and non-additive gene action. BLUP methodology under non-additive gene action is not feasible for large inbred or crossbred pedigrees. It is easy to incorporate non-additive gene action in a finite locus model. Under such a model, the unobservable genotypic values can be predicted using the conditional mean of the genotypic values given the data. To compute this conditional mean, conditional genotype probabilities must be computed. In this study these probabilities were computed using iterative peeling, and three Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods – scalar Gibbs, blocking Gibbs, and a sampler that combines the Elston Stewart algorithm with iterative peeling (ESIP). The performance of these four methods was assessed using simulated data. For pedigrees with loops, iterative peeling fails to provide accurate genotype probability estimates for some pedigree members. Also, computing time is exponentially related to the number of loci in the model. For MCMC methods, a linear relationship can be maintained by sampling genotypes one locus at a time. Out of the three MCMC methods considered, ESIP, performed the best while scalar Gibbs performed the worst. BioMed Central 2003-11-15 /pmc/articles/PMC2698000/ /pubmed/14604509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-35-7-585 Text en Copyright © 2003 INRA, EDP Sciences |
spellingShingle | Research Totir, Liviu R Fernando, Rohan L Dekkers, Jack CM Fernández, Soledad A Guldbrandtsen, Bernt A comparison of alternative methods to compute conditional genotype probabilities for genetic evaluation with finite locus models |
title | A comparison of alternative methods to compute conditional genotype probabilities for genetic evaluation with finite locus models |
title_full | A comparison of alternative methods to compute conditional genotype probabilities for genetic evaluation with finite locus models |
title_fullStr | A comparison of alternative methods to compute conditional genotype probabilities for genetic evaluation with finite locus models |
title_full_unstemmed | A comparison of alternative methods to compute conditional genotype probabilities for genetic evaluation with finite locus models |
title_short | A comparison of alternative methods to compute conditional genotype probabilities for genetic evaluation with finite locus models |
title_sort | comparison of alternative methods to compute conditional genotype probabilities for genetic evaluation with finite locus models |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2698000/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14604509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-35-7-585 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT totirliviur acomparisonofalternativemethodstocomputeconditionalgenotypeprobabilitiesforgeneticevaluationwithfinitelocusmodels AT fernandorohanl acomparisonofalternativemethodstocomputeconditionalgenotypeprobabilitiesforgeneticevaluationwithfinitelocusmodels AT dekkersjackcm acomparisonofalternativemethodstocomputeconditionalgenotypeprobabilitiesforgeneticevaluationwithfinitelocusmodels AT fernandezsoledada acomparisonofalternativemethodstocomputeconditionalgenotypeprobabilitiesforgeneticevaluationwithfinitelocusmodels AT guldbrandtsenbernt acomparisonofalternativemethodstocomputeconditionalgenotypeprobabilitiesforgeneticevaluationwithfinitelocusmodels AT totirliviur comparisonofalternativemethodstocomputeconditionalgenotypeprobabilitiesforgeneticevaluationwithfinitelocusmodels AT fernandorohanl comparisonofalternativemethodstocomputeconditionalgenotypeprobabilitiesforgeneticevaluationwithfinitelocusmodels AT dekkersjackcm comparisonofalternativemethodstocomputeconditionalgenotypeprobabilitiesforgeneticevaluationwithfinitelocusmodels AT fernandezsoledada comparisonofalternativemethodstocomputeconditionalgenotypeprobabilitiesforgeneticevaluationwithfinitelocusmodels AT guldbrandtsenbernt comparisonofalternativemethodstocomputeconditionalgenotypeprobabilitiesforgeneticevaluationwithfinitelocusmodels |