Study of the optimum haplotype length to build genomic relationship matrices

Genetics Selection Evolution

Research Article

Bruce Tier¹  John Henshall²  Mohammad H. Ferdosi³ 

[1] Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, Australia;Cobb-Vantress, Siloam Springs, AR, USA;CSIRO Agriculture Flagship, FD McMaster Laboratory Chiswick, Armidale, Australia;The Centre for Genetic Analysis and Applications, School of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale, Australia;Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, University of New England, Armidale, Australia;

关键词: Quantitative Trait Locus;    Relationship Matrix;    Genomic Prediction;    Estimate Breeding Value;    Segment Size;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12711-016-0253-6

 received in 2015-06-21, accepted in 2016-09-15,  发布年份 2016

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

Background As genomic data becomes more abundant, genomic prediction is more routinely used to estimate breeding values. In genomic prediction, the relationship matrix (A\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\mathbf{A}}$$\end{document}), which is traditionally used in genetic evaluations is replaced by the genomic relationship matrix (G\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\mathbf{G}}$$\end{document}). This paper considers alternative ways of building relationship matrices either using single markers or haplotypes of different lengths. We compared the prediction accuracies and log-likelihoods when using these alternative relationship matrices and the traditional G\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\mathbf{G}}$$\end{document} matrix, for real and simulated data.MethodsFor real data, we built relationship matrices using 50k genotype data for a population of Brahman cattle to analyze three traits: scrotal circumference (SC), age at puberty (AGECL) and weight at first corpus luteum (WTCL). Haplotypes were phased with hsphase and imputed with BEAGLE. The relationship matrices were built using three methods based on haplotypes of different lengths. The log-likelihood was considered to define the optimum haplotype lengths for each trait and each haplotype-based relationship matrix.ResultsBased on simulated data, we showed that the inverse of G\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\mathbf{G}}$$\end{document} matrix and the inverse of the haplotype relationship matrices for methods using one-single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) phased haplotypes provided coefficients of determination (R2) close to 1, although the estimated genetic variances differed across methods. Using real data and multiple SNPs in the haplotype segments to build the relationship matrices provided better results than the G\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\mathbf{G}}$$\end{document} matrix based on one-SNP haplotypes. However, the optimal haplotype length to achieve the highest log-likelihood depended on the method used and the trait. The optimal haplotype length (7 to 8 SNPs) was similar for SC and AGECL. One of the haplotype-based methods achieved the largest increase in log-likelihood for SC, i.e. from −1330 when using G\documentclass[12pt]{minimal}\usepackage{amsmath}\usepackage{wasysym}\usepackage{amsfonts}\usepackage{amssymb}\usepackage{amsbsy}\usepackage{mathrsfs}\usepackage{upgreek}\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt}\begin{document}$${\mathbf{G}}$$\end{document} to −1325 when using haplotypes with eight SNPs.ConclusionsBuilding the relationship matrix by using haplotypes that comprise multiple SNPs will increase the accuracy of estimated breeding values. However, the optimum haplotype length that shows the correct relationship among individuals for each trait can be derived from the data.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s) 2016

【 图 表 】

Fig. 6

Fig. 4

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Fig. 7

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

12936_2023_4742_Article_IEq9.gif

Fig. 6

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 8

Fig. 2

Fig. 5

Fig. 4

12936_2016_1411_Article_IEq110.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

12888_2023_5283_Article_IEq2.gif

12888_2023_5283_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 1

12936_2017_1963_Article_IEq54.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

12936_2015_1050_Article_IEq030.gif

Fig. 2

12936_2017_2118_Article_IEq1.gif

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq56.gif

Fig. 2

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

Fig. 5

Fig. 14

Fig. 11

12936_2017_1882_Article_IEq9.gif

Fig. 7

Fig. 3

12951_2017_283_Article_IEq3.gif

Fig. 13

Fig. 4

Fig. 3

Fig. 2

Fig. 7

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq54.gif

Fig. 5

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq53.gif

Fig. 2

12888_2023_5292_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq16.gif

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq15.gif

Fig. 6

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq13.gif

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq12.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 9

Fig. 4

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq52.gif

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq51.gif

Fig. 4

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 4

Fig. 10

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Scheme 1

12951_2016_223_Article_IEq1.gif

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq50.gif

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq49.gif

12936_2017_1904_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

42004_2023_1031_Figa_HTML.png

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq9.gif

42004_2023_1031_Article_IEq16.gif

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq8.gif

Fig. 5

Fig. 6

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq48.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 5

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 10

Fig. 1

Fig. 4

Fig. 2

Fig. 8

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq7.gif

Fig. 1

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq6.gif

Fig. 8

40538_2023_473_Article_IEq1.gif

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq78.gif

Fig. 7

Fig. 3

Fig. 8

Fig. 2

12936_2015_836_Article_IEq25.gif

Fig. 4

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq5.gif

Fig. 2

Fig. 1: The conceptual framework for adherence to treatment guidelines in private drug outlets in Kisumu, Kenya

Fig. 4

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq77.gif

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq76.gif

Fig. 2

Scheme. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 6

12951_2017_303_Article_IEq1.gif

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq3.gif

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

Fig. 3

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq75.gif

Fig. 2

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq74.gif

Fig. 2

Fig. 8

Fig. 5

Fig. 5

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

12951_2016_246_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 6

Fig. 7

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq73.gif

Fig. 6

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq72.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Fig. 1

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Fig. 4

Fig. 1

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

12947_2017_100_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 3

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq70.gif

Fig. 10

Fig. 2

Fig. 7

Fig. 5

Fig. 1

Fig. 19

12951_2017_255_Article_IEq45.gif

Fig. 3

Fig. 17

12888_2023_5206_Article_IEq1.gif

Fig. 16

Fig. 1

Fig. 15

Fig. 3

Fig. 14

Fig. 5

Fig. 2

Fig. 13

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Fig. 12

Fig. 6

Fig. 3

Fig. 11

Fig. 2

Fig. 9

Fig. 1

12936_2017_1963_Article_IEq41.gif

Fig. 8

Fig. 8

Fig. 6

12951_2016_177_Article_IEq1.gif

12951_2015_155_Article_IEq65.gif

Fig. 4

Fig. 5

Fig. 3

Fig. 1