Cargando…

Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study

BACKGROUND: After the extensive implementation of genomic selection (GS), the choice of the statistical model and data used to estimate variance components (VCs) remains unclear. A primary concern is that VCs estimated from a traditional pedigree-based animal model (P-AM) will be biased due to ignor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gao, Hongding, Madsen, Per, Aamand, Gert Pedersen, Thomasen, Jørn Rind, Sørensen, Anders Christian, Jensen, Just
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6902321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31818251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-6323-8
_version_ 1783477642785193984
author Gao, Hongding
Madsen, Per
Aamand, Gert Pedersen
Thomasen, Jørn Rind
Sørensen, Anders Christian
Jensen, Just
author_facet Gao, Hongding
Madsen, Per
Aamand, Gert Pedersen
Thomasen, Jørn Rind
Sørensen, Anders Christian
Jensen, Just
author_sort Gao, Hongding
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: After the extensive implementation of genomic selection (GS), the choice of the statistical model and data used to estimate variance components (VCs) remains unclear. A primary concern is that VCs estimated from a traditional pedigree-based animal model (P-AM) will be biased due to ignoring the impact of GS. The objectives of this study were to examine the effects of GS on estimates of VC in the analysis of different sets of phenotypes and to investigate VC estimation using different methods. Data were simulated to resemble the Danish Jersey population. The simulation included three phases: (1) a historical phase; (2) 20 years of conventional breeding; and (3) 15 years of GS. The three scenarios based on different sets of phenotypes for VC estimation were as follows: (1) Pheno(1): phenotypes from only the conventional phase (1–20 years); (2) Pheno(1 + 2): phenotypes from both the conventional phase and GS phase (1–35 years); (3) Pheno(2): phenotypes from only the GS phase (21–35 years). Single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP), a single-step Bayesian regression model (ssBR), and P-AM were applied. Two base populations were defined: the first was the founder population referred to by the pedigree-based relationship (P-base); the second was the base population referred to by the current genotyped population (G-base). RESULTS: In general, both the ssGBLUP and ssBR models with all the phenotypic and genotypic information (Pheno(1 + 2)) yielded biased estimates of additive genetic variance compared to the P-base model. When the phenotypes from the conventional breeding phase were excluded (Pheno(2)), P-AM led to underestimation of the genetic variance of P-base. Compared to the VCs of G-base, when phenotypes from the conventional breeding phase (Pheno(2)) were ignored, the ssBR model yielded unbiased estimates of the total genetic variance and marker-based genetic variance, whereas the residual variance was overestimated. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that neither of the single-step models (ssGBLUP and ssBR) can precisely estimate the VCs for populations undergoing GS. Overall, the best solution for obtaining unbiased estimates of VCs is to use P-AM with phenotypes from the conventional phase or phenotypes from both the conventional and GS phases.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6902321
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69023212019-12-11 Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study Gao, Hongding Madsen, Per Aamand, Gert Pedersen Thomasen, Jørn Rind Sørensen, Anders Christian Jensen, Just BMC Genomics Research Article BACKGROUND: After the extensive implementation of genomic selection (GS), the choice of the statistical model and data used to estimate variance components (VCs) remains unclear. A primary concern is that VCs estimated from a traditional pedigree-based animal model (P-AM) will be biased due to ignoring the impact of GS. The objectives of this study were to examine the effects of GS on estimates of VC in the analysis of different sets of phenotypes and to investigate VC estimation using different methods. Data were simulated to resemble the Danish Jersey population. The simulation included three phases: (1) a historical phase; (2) 20 years of conventional breeding; and (3) 15 years of GS. The three scenarios based on different sets of phenotypes for VC estimation were as follows: (1) Pheno(1): phenotypes from only the conventional phase (1–20 years); (2) Pheno(1 + 2): phenotypes from both the conventional phase and GS phase (1–35 years); (3) Pheno(2): phenotypes from only the GS phase (21–35 years). Single-step genomic BLUP (ssGBLUP), a single-step Bayesian regression model (ssBR), and P-AM were applied. Two base populations were defined: the first was the founder population referred to by the pedigree-based relationship (P-base); the second was the base population referred to by the current genotyped population (G-base). RESULTS: In general, both the ssGBLUP and ssBR models with all the phenotypic and genotypic information (Pheno(1 + 2)) yielded biased estimates of additive genetic variance compared to the P-base model. When the phenotypes from the conventional breeding phase were excluded (Pheno(2)), P-AM led to underestimation of the genetic variance of P-base. Compared to the VCs of G-base, when phenotypes from the conventional breeding phase (Pheno(2)) were ignored, the ssBR model yielded unbiased estimates of the total genetic variance and marker-based genetic variance, whereas the residual variance was overestimated. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that neither of the single-step models (ssGBLUP and ssBR) can precisely estimate the VCs for populations undergoing GS. Overall, the best solution for obtaining unbiased estimates of VCs is to use P-AM with phenotypes from the conventional phase or phenotypes from both the conventional and GS phases. BioMed Central 2019-12-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6902321/ /pubmed/31818251 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-6323-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 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
Gao, Hongding
Madsen, Per
Aamand, Gert Pedersen
Thomasen, Jørn Rind
Sørensen, Anders Christian
Jensen, Just
Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study
title Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study
title_full Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study
title_fullStr Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study
title_full_unstemmed Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study
title_short Bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study
title_sort bias in estimates of variance components in populations undergoing genomic selection: a simulation study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6902321/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31818251
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-6323-8
work_keys_str_mv AT gaohongding biasinestimatesofvariancecomponentsinpopulationsundergoinggenomicselectionasimulationstudy
AT madsenper biasinestimatesofvariancecomponentsinpopulationsundergoinggenomicselectionasimulationstudy
AT aamandgertpedersen biasinestimatesofvariancecomponentsinpopulationsundergoinggenomicselectionasimulationstudy
AT thomasenjørnrind biasinestimatesofvariancecomponentsinpopulationsundergoinggenomicselectionasimulationstudy
AT sørensenanderschristian biasinestimatesofvariancecomponentsinpopulationsundergoinggenomicselectionasimulationstudy
AT jensenjust biasinestimatesofvariancecomponentsinpopulationsundergoinggenomicselectionasimulationstudy