Cargando…

Applying different genomic evaluation approaches on QTLMAS2010 dataset

BACKGROUND: With the availability of high throughput genotyping, genomic selection, the evaluation of animals based on dense SNP genotyping, is receiving more and more attention. Several statistical methods have been suggested for genomic selection. Compared to traditional selection, genomic selecti...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nadaf, Javad, Pong-Wong, Ricardo
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3103208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21624179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1753-6561-5-S3-S9
_version_ 1782204499275808768
author Nadaf, Javad
Pong-Wong, Ricardo
author_facet Nadaf, Javad
Pong-Wong, Ricardo
author_sort Nadaf, Javad
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: With the availability of high throughput genotyping, genomic selection, the evaluation of animals based on dense SNP genotyping, is receiving more and more attention. Several statistical methods have been suggested for genomic selection. Compared to traditional selection, genomic selection can be more accurate which can lead to higher efficiency in terms of time and cost. Herein we applied different genomic evaluation methods on the 14(th) QTLMAS dataset. METHODS: Four different approaches were used for the estimation of EBV of animals for the Quantitative and the Binary Trait (QT and BT respectively). It included two Bayes B types of approaches (BB): using only SNP information (GBB) or SNP and Pedigree information (GPBB); and two genomic BLUP, GBLUP and GPBLUP. Traditional BLUP was also used only for comparison. When using BB methodology, the probability of SNP having an effect on the traits (which include a quantitative and a binary trait) were also estimated. We also performed “standard” QTL mapping approaches including linkage and association analyses to compare them with BB results as a potential QTL mapping tools. RESULTS: For QT, the best accuracy of EBV (correlation between EBVs and TBVs) for young animals, was obtained by BB methods (r = 0.68). Genomic BLUP estimations (GBLUP and GPBLUP) were less accurate (r = 0.60 and 0.61 respectively). Similar results were obtained for the BT: r were estimated at 0.82, 0.82, 0.71 and 0.70 for GPBB, GBB, GPBLUP and GBLUP respectively. Using traditional BLUP, r was at 0.39 and 0.47 for QT and BT respectively. The genetic correlation between the two traits (approximated by the correlation between EBVs for BT and QT using GBB method) was as high as 0.58. CONCLUSIONS: Better accuracies were obtained using BB methods, compared to BLUP analyses. Compared to the traditional BLUP, the accuracy of the EBVs was improved about 70% and 50% using BB and GBLUP methods respectively. The benefit of genomic selection was the same for both the QT and BT. Models with and without polygenic effect led to similar accuracies in the estimation of breeding values. The BT and QT were genetically correlated (r=0.58) which suggested that bivariate analyses may be of advantages. Signal profile by GBB followed well the true QTL patterns, which was consistent with good estimation of EBVs by this method, suggesting its potential value for QTL mapping.
format Text
id pubmed-3103208
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31032082011-05-28 Applying different genomic evaluation approaches on QTLMAS2010 dataset Nadaf, Javad Pong-Wong, Ricardo BMC Proc Proceedings BACKGROUND: With the availability of high throughput genotyping, genomic selection, the evaluation of animals based on dense SNP genotyping, is receiving more and more attention. Several statistical methods have been suggested for genomic selection. Compared to traditional selection, genomic selection can be more accurate which can lead to higher efficiency in terms of time and cost. Herein we applied different genomic evaluation methods on the 14(th) QTLMAS dataset. METHODS: Four different approaches were used for the estimation of EBV of animals for the Quantitative and the Binary Trait (QT and BT respectively). It included two Bayes B types of approaches (BB): using only SNP information (GBB) or SNP and Pedigree information (GPBB); and two genomic BLUP, GBLUP and GPBLUP. Traditional BLUP was also used only for comparison. When using BB methodology, the probability of SNP having an effect on the traits (which include a quantitative and a binary trait) were also estimated. We also performed “standard” QTL mapping approaches including linkage and association analyses to compare them with BB results as a potential QTL mapping tools. RESULTS: For QT, the best accuracy of EBV (correlation between EBVs and TBVs) for young animals, was obtained by BB methods (r = 0.68). Genomic BLUP estimations (GBLUP and GPBLUP) were less accurate (r = 0.60 and 0.61 respectively). Similar results were obtained for the BT: r were estimated at 0.82, 0.82, 0.71 and 0.70 for GPBB, GBB, GPBLUP and GBLUP respectively. Using traditional BLUP, r was at 0.39 and 0.47 for QT and BT respectively. The genetic correlation between the two traits (approximated by the correlation between EBVs for BT and QT using GBB method) was as high as 0.58. CONCLUSIONS: Better accuracies were obtained using BB methods, compared to BLUP analyses. Compared to the traditional BLUP, the accuracy of the EBVs was improved about 70% and 50% using BB and GBLUP methods respectively. The benefit of genomic selection was the same for both the QT and BT. Models with and without polygenic effect led to similar accuracies in the estimation of breeding values. The BT and QT were genetically correlated (r=0.58) which suggested that bivariate analyses may be of advantages. Signal profile by GBB followed well the true QTL patterns, which was consistent with good estimation of EBVs by this method, suggesting its potential value for QTL mapping. BioMed Central 2011-05-27 /pmc/articles/PMC3103208/ /pubmed/21624179 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1753-6561-5-S3-S9 Text en Copyright ©2011 Nadaf and Pong-Wong; 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 Proceedings
Nadaf, Javad
Pong-Wong, Ricardo
Applying different genomic evaluation approaches on QTLMAS2010 dataset
title Applying different genomic evaluation approaches on QTLMAS2010 dataset
title_full Applying different genomic evaluation approaches on QTLMAS2010 dataset
title_fullStr Applying different genomic evaluation approaches on QTLMAS2010 dataset
title_full_unstemmed Applying different genomic evaluation approaches on QTLMAS2010 dataset
title_short Applying different genomic evaluation approaches on QTLMAS2010 dataset
title_sort applying different genomic evaluation approaches on qtlmas2010 dataset
topic Proceedings
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3103208/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21624179
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1753-6561-5-S3-S9
work_keys_str_mv AT nadafjavad applyingdifferentgenomicevaluationapproachesonqtlmas2010dataset
AT pongwongricardo applyingdifferentgenomicevaluationapproachesonqtlmas2010dataset