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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |