Cargando…

Comparison of single-trait and multiple-trait genomic prediction models

BACKGROUND: In this study, a single-trait genomic model (STGM) is compared with a multiple-trait genomic model (MTGM) for genomic prediction using conventional estimated breeding values (EBVs) calculated using a conventional single-trait and multiple-trait linear mixed models as the response variabl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Guo, Gang, Zhao, Fuping, Wang, Yachun, Zhang, Yuan, Du, Lixin, Su, Guosheng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24593261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-15-30
_version_ 1782310197360852992
author Guo, Gang
Zhao, Fuping
Wang, Yachun
Zhang, Yuan
Du, Lixin
Su, Guosheng
author_facet Guo, Gang
Zhao, Fuping
Wang, Yachun
Zhang, Yuan
Du, Lixin
Su, Guosheng
author_sort Guo, Gang
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In this study, a single-trait genomic model (STGM) is compared with a multiple-trait genomic model (MTGM) for genomic prediction using conventional estimated breeding values (EBVs) calculated using a conventional single-trait and multiple-trait linear mixed models as the response variables. Three scenarios with and without missing data were simulated; no missing data, 90% missing data in a trait with high heritability, and 90% missing data in a trait with low heritability. The simulated genome had a length of 500 cM with 5000 equally spaced single nucleotide polymorphism markers and 300 randomly distributed quantitative trait loci (QTL). The true breeding values of each trait were determined using 200 of the QTLs, and the remaining 100 QTLs were assumed to affect both the high (trait I with heritability of 0.3) and the low (trait II with heritability of 0.05) heritability traits. The genetic correlation between traits I and II was 0.5, and the residual correlation was zero. RESULTS: The results showed that when there were no missing records, MTGM and STGM gave the same reliability for the genomic predictions for trait I while, for trait II, MTGM performed better that STGM. When there were missing records for one of the two traits, MTGM performed much better than STGM. In general, the difference in reliability of genomic EBVs predicted using the EBV response variables estimated from either the multiple-trait or single-trait models was relatively small for the trait without missing data. However, for the trait with missing data, the EBV response variable obtained from the multiple-trait model gave a more reliable genomic prediction than the EBV response variable from the single-trait model. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that MTGM performed better than STGM for the trait with low heritability and for the trait with a limited number of records. Even when the EBV response variable was obtained using the multiple-trait model, the genomic prediction using MTGM was more reliable than the prediction using the STGM.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3975852
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-39758522014-04-17 Comparison of single-trait and multiple-trait genomic prediction models Guo, Gang Zhao, Fuping Wang, Yachun Zhang, Yuan Du, Lixin Su, Guosheng BMC Genet Research Article BACKGROUND: In this study, a single-trait genomic model (STGM) is compared with a multiple-trait genomic model (MTGM) for genomic prediction using conventional estimated breeding values (EBVs) calculated using a conventional single-trait and multiple-trait linear mixed models as the response variables. Three scenarios with and without missing data were simulated; no missing data, 90% missing data in a trait with high heritability, and 90% missing data in a trait with low heritability. The simulated genome had a length of 500 cM with 5000 equally spaced single nucleotide polymorphism markers and 300 randomly distributed quantitative trait loci (QTL). The true breeding values of each trait were determined using 200 of the QTLs, and the remaining 100 QTLs were assumed to affect both the high (trait I with heritability of 0.3) and the low (trait II with heritability of 0.05) heritability traits. The genetic correlation between traits I and II was 0.5, and the residual correlation was zero. RESULTS: The results showed that when there were no missing records, MTGM and STGM gave the same reliability for the genomic predictions for trait I while, for trait II, MTGM performed better that STGM. When there were missing records for one of the two traits, MTGM performed much better than STGM. In general, the difference in reliability of genomic EBVs predicted using the EBV response variables estimated from either the multiple-trait or single-trait models was relatively small for the trait without missing data. However, for the trait with missing data, the EBV response variable obtained from the multiple-trait model gave a more reliable genomic prediction than the EBV response variable from the single-trait model. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that MTGM performed better than STGM for the trait with low heritability and for the trait with a limited number of records. Even when the EBV response variable was obtained using the multiple-trait model, the genomic prediction using MTGM was more reliable than the prediction using the STGM. BioMed Central 2014-03-04 /pmc/articles/PMC3975852/ /pubmed/24593261 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-15-30 Text en Copyright © 2014 Guo 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 credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Guo, Gang
Zhao, Fuping
Wang, Yachun
Zhang, Yuan
Du, Lixin
Su, Guosheng
Comparison of single-trait and multiple-trait genomic prediction models
title Comparison of single-trait and multiple-trait genomic prediction models
title_full Comparison of single-trait and multiple-trait genomic prediction models
title_fullStr Comparison of single-trait and multiple-trait genomic prediction models
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of single-trait and multiple-trait genomic prediction models
title_short Comparison of single-trait and multiple-trait genomic prediction models
title_sort comparison of single-trait and multiple-trait genomic prediction models
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3975852/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24593261
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-15-30
work_keys_str_mv AT guogang comparisonofsingletraitandmultipletraitgenomicpredictionmodels
AT zhaofuping comparisonofsingletraitandmultipletraitgenomicpredictionmodels
AT wangyachun comparisonofsingletraitandmultipletraitgenomicpredictionmodels
AT zhangyuan comparisonofsingletraitandmultipletraitgenomicpredictionmodels
AT dulixin comparisonofsingletraitandmultipletraitgenomicpredictionmodels
AT suguosheng comparisonofsingletraitandmultipletraitgenomicpredictionmodels