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

BMC Genetics

Guosheng Su¹  Lixin Du²  Yuan Zhang³  Yachun Wang³  Fuping Zhao²  Gang Guo¹ 

[1] Department of Genetics and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Aarhus University, Tjele DK-8830, Denmark;National Center for Molecular Genetics and Breeding of Animal, Institute of Animal Sciences, Chinese academy of Agricultural Sciences, Beijing 100193, China;College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing 100193, China

关键词: Heritability;    Single-trait model;    Multiple-trait model;    Reliability;    Genomic selection;   

Others  :  866629
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2156-15-30

 received in 2013-11-19, accepted in 2014-02-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

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.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Guo et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Meuwissen THE, Hayes BJ, Goddard ME: Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics 2001, 157(4):1819-1829.
• [2]Schaeffer L: Strategy for applying genome‒wide selection in dairy cattle. J Anim Breed Genet 2006, 123(4):218-223.
• [3]Weigel K, De Los CG, González-Recio O, Naya H, Wu X, Long N, Rosa G, Gianola D: Predictive ability of direct genomic values for lifetime net merit of Holstein sires using selected subsets of single nucleotide polymorphism markers. J Dairy Sci 2009, 92(10):5248.
• [4]Vazquez A, Rosa G, Weigel K, De Los Campos G, Gianola D, Allison D: Predictive ability of subsets of single nucleotide polymorphisms with and without parent average in US Holsteins. J Dairy Sci 2010, 93(12):5942.
• [5]Makowsky R, Pajewski NM, Klimentidis YC, Vazquez AI, Duarte CW, Allison DB, De Los Campos G: Beyond missing heritability: prediction of complex traits. PLoS genetics 2011, 7(4):e1002051.
• [6]Hayes B, Bowman P, Chamberlain A, Goddard M: Invited review: genomic selection in dairy cattle: progress and challenges. J Dairy Sci 2009, 92(2):433-443.
• [7]VanRaden P, Van Tassell C, Wiggans G, Sonstegard T, Schnabel R, Taylor J, Schenkel F: Invited review: reliability of genomic predictions for North American Holstein bulls. J Dairy Sci 2009, 92(1):16-24.
• [8]Harris B, Johnson D: Genomic predictions for New Zealand dairy bulls and integration with national genetic evaluation. J Dairy Sci 2010, 93(3):1243-1252.
• [9]Su G, Guldbrandtsen B, Gregersen V, Lund M: Preliminary investigation on reliability of genomic estimated breeding values in the Danish Holstein population. J Dairy Sci 2010, 93(3):1175-1183.
• [10]Calus MPL, Veerkamp RF: Accuracy of multi-trait genomic selection using different methods. Genet Sel Evol 2011, 43(1):1-14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Jia Y, Jannink JL: Multiple-trait genomic selection methods increase genetic value prediction accuracy. Genetics 2012, 192(4):1513-1522.
• [12]Hayashi T, Iwata H: A Bayesian method and its variational approximation for prediction of genomic breeding values in multiple traits. BMC bioinformatics 2013, 14(1):1-14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Aguilar I, Misztal I, Tsuruta S, Wiggans G, Lawlor T: Multiple trait genomic evaluation of conception rate in Holsteins. J Dairy Sci 2011, 94(5):2621-2624.
• [14]Tsuruta S, Misztal I, Aguilar I, Lawlor T: Multiple-trait genomic evaluation of linear type traits using genomic and phenotypic data in US Holsteins. J Dairy Sci 2011, 94(8):4198-4204.
• [15]Meuwissen T, Goddard M: Accurate prediction of genetic values for complex traits by whole-genome resequencing. Genetics 2010, 185(2):623-631.
• [16]Daetwyler HD, Pong-Wong R, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA: The impact of genetic architecture on genome-wide evaluation methods. Genetics 2010, 185(3):1021-1031.
• [17]Clark SA, Hickey JM, van der Werf JH: Different models of genetic variation and their effect on genomic evaluation. Genet Sel Evol 2011, 43:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Coster A, Bastiaansen JW, Calus MP, Van Arendonk JA, Bovenhuis H: Sensitivity of methods for estimating breeding values using genetic markers to the number of QTL and distribution of QTL variance. Genet Sel Evol 2010, 42:9. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Li Z, Sillanpää MJ: Overview of LASSO-related penalized regression methods for quantitative trait mapping and genomic selection. Theor Appl Genet 2012, 125(3):419-435.
• [20]Zhong S, Dekkers JCM, Fernando RL, Jannink JL: Factors affecting accuracy from genomic selection in populations derived from multiple inbred lines: a barley case study. Genetics 2009, 182(1):355-364.
• [21]Rius‒Vilarrasa E, Brøndum R, Strandén I, Guldbrandtsen B, Strandberg E, Lund M, Fikse W: Influence of model specifications on the reliabilities of genomic prediction in a Swedish–Finnish red breed cattle population. J Anim Breed Genet 2012, 295(5):369-397.
• [22]De Los Campos G, Hickey JM, Pong-Wong R, Daetwyler HD, Calus MP: Whole-genome regression and prediction methods applied to plant and animal breeding. Genetics 2013, 193(2):327-345.
• [23]Ober U, Ayroles JF, Stone EA, Richards S, Zhu D, Gibbs RA, Stricker C, Gianola D, Schlather M, Mackay TFC: Using whole-genome sequence data to predict quantitative trait phenotypes in Drosophila melanogaster. PLoS genetics 2012, 8(5):e1002685.
• [24]Li Z, Sillanpää MJ: Estimation of quantitative trait locus effects with epistasis by variational Bayes algorithms. Genetics 2012, 190(1):231-249.
• [25]Su G, Madsen P, Nielsen US, Mäntysaari EA, Aamand GP, Christensen OF, Lund MS: Genomic prediction for Nordic Red Cattle using one-step and selection index blending. J Dairy Sci 2012, 95(2):909-917.
• [26]Guo G, Lund M, Zhang Y, Su G: Comparison between genomic predictions using daughter yield deviation and conventional estimated breeding value as response variables. J Anim Breed Genet 2010, 127(6):423-432.
• [27]Jairath L, Dekkers J, Schaeffer L, Liu Z, Burnside E, Kolstad B: Genetic evaluation for herd life in Canada. J Dairy Sci 1998, 81(2):550-562.
• [28]Hayes B, Goddard ME: The distribution of the effects of genes affecting quantitative traits in livestock. Genet Sel Evol 2001, 33(3):209-230. BioMed Central Full Text
• [29]Allison DB, Fernandez JR, Heo M, Zhu S, Etzel C, Beasley TM, Amos CI: Bias in estimates of quantitative-trait–locus effect in genome scans: demonstration of the phenomenon and a method-of-moments procedure for reducing bias. Am J Hum Genet 2002, 70(3):575-585.
• [30]VanRaden P: Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci 2008, 91(11):4414-4423.
• [31]Madsen P, Jensen J: DMU: A user’s guide. A package for analysing multivariate mixed models. Version 6, release 4.7. 2007. http://dmu.agrsci.dk/DMU/Doc/Current/dmuv6_guide.5.2.pdf webcite Acessed Nov. 15, 2007
• [32]Steiger JH: Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol Bull 1980, 87(2):245.
• [33]Dunn OJ, Clark V: Comparison of tests of the equality of dependent correlation coefficients. J Am Stat Assoc 1971, 66(336):904-908.
• [34]Coren A, Steine T, Colleau J, Pedersen J, Pribyl J, Reinsch N: Economic values in dairy cattle breeding, with special reference to functional traits. Report of an EAAP-working group. Livest Prod Sci 1997, 49:1-21.