A computationally efficient method for approximating reliabilities in large-scale single-step genomic prediction.
Journal
Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE
ISSN: 1297-9686
Titre abrégé: Genet Sel Evol
Pays: France
ID NLM: 9114088
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Jan 2023
05 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
30
09
2022
accepted:
20
12
2022
entrez:
5
1
2023
pubmed:
6
1
2023
medline:
10
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In this study, computationally efficient methods to approximate the reliabilities of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) in a single-step genomic prediction model including a residual polygenic (RPG) effect are described. In order to calculate the reliabilities of the genotyped animals, a single nucleotide polymorphism best linear unbiased prediction (SNPBLUP) or a genomic BLUP (GBLUP), was used, where two alternatives to account for the RPG effect were tested. In the direct approach, the genomic model included the RPG effect, while in the blended method, it did not but an index was used to weight the genomic and pedigree-based BLUP (PBLUP) reliabilities. In order to calculate the single-step GBLUP reliabilities for the breeding values for the non-genotyped animals, a simplified weighted-PBLUP model that included a general mean and additive genetic effects with weights accounting for the non-genomic and genomic information was used. We compared five schemes for the weights. Two datasets, i.e., a small (Data 1) one and a large (Data 2) one were used. For the genotyped animals in Data 1, correlations between approximate reliabilities using the blended method and exact reliabilities ranged from 0.993 to 0.996 across three lactations. The slopes observed by regressing the reliabilities of GEBV from the exact method on those from the blended method were 1.0 for all three lactations. For Data 2, the correlations and slopes ranged, respectively, from 0.980 to 0.986 and from 0.91 to 0.96, and for the non-genotyped animals in Data 1, they ranged, respectively, from 0.987 to 0.994 and from 0.987 to 1, which indicate that the approximations were in line with the exact results. The best approach achieved correlations of 0.992 to 0.994 across lactations. Our results demonstrate that the approximated reliabilities calculated using our proposed approach are in good agreement with the exact reliabilities. The blended method for the genotyped animals is computationally more feasible than the direct method when RPG effects are included, particularly for large-scale datasets. The approach can serve as an effective strategy to estimate the reliabilities of GEBV in large-scale single-step genomic predictions.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In this study, computationally efficient methods to approximate the reliabilities of genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) in a single-step genomic prediction model including a residual polygenic (RPG) effect are described. In order to calculate the reliabilities of the genotyped animals, a single nucleotide polymorphism best linear unbiased prediction (SNPBLUP) or a genomic BLUP (GBLUP), was used, where two alternatives to account for the RPG effect were tested. In the direct approach, the genomic model included the RPG effect, while in the blended method, it did not but an index was used to weight the genomic and pedigree-based BLUP (PBLUP) reliabilities. In order to calculate the single-step GBLUP reliabilities for the breeding values for the non-genotyped animals, a simplified weighted-PBLUP model that included a general mean and additive genetic effects with weights accounting for the non-genomic and genomic information was used. We compared five schemes for the weights. Two datasets, i.e., a small (Data 1) one and a large (Data 2) one were used.
RESULTS
RESULTS
For the genotyped animals in Data 1, correlations between approximate reliabilities using the blended method and exact reliabilities ranged from 0.993 to 0.996 across three lactations. The slopes observed by regressing the reliabilities of GEBV from the exact method on those from the blended method were 1.0 for all three lactations. For Data 2, the correlations and slopes ranged, respectively, from 0.980 to 0.986 and from 0.91 to 0.96, and for the non-genotyped animals in Data 1, they ranged, respectively, from 0.987 to 0.994 and from 0.987 to 1, which indicate that the approximations were in line with the exact results. The best approach achieved correlations of 0.992 to 0.994 across lactations.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our results demonstrate that the approximated reliabilities calculated using our proposed approach are in good agreement with the exact reliabilities. The blended method for the genotyped animals is computationally more feasible than the direct method when RPG effects are included, particularly for large-scale datasets. The approach can serve as an effective strategy to estimate the reliabilities of GEBV in large-scale single-step genomic predictions.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36604633
doi: 10.1186/s12711-022-00774-y
pii: 10.1186/s12711-022-00774-y
pmc: PMC9814342
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
J Dairy Sci. 2022 Jun;105(6):5221-5237
pubmed: 35400498
JDS Commun. 2021 Mar 19;2(3):137-141
pubmed: 36339497
J Dairy Sci. 2020 Jun;103(6):5314-5326
pubmed: 32331883
Genetics. 2016 Feb;202(2):401-9
pubmed: 26584903
J Dairy Sci. 2019 Apr;102(4):3259-3265
pubmed: 30738687
J Anim Sci. 2022 Jan 1;100(1):
pubmed: 34877603
J Dairy Sci. 2009 Sep;92(9):4656-63
pubmed: 19700729
J Dairy Sci. 1992 Mar;75(3):868-77
pubmed: 1569277
J Dairy Sci. 2008 Nov;91(11):4414-23
pubmed: 18946147
J Dairy Sci. 2009 Jun;92(6):2971-5
pubmed: 19448030
J Dairy Sci. 2018 Nov;101(11):10082-10088
pubmed: 30146284
J Dairy Sci. 1999 Dec;82(12):2779-87
pubmed: 10629826
J Dairy Sci. 1998 Oct;81(10):2723-8
pubmed: 9812277
J Dairy Sci. 2013 Jan;96(1):647-54
pubmed: 23127903
Genet Sel Evol. 2014 Sep 22;46:50
pubmed: 25253441
J Dairy Sci. 2020 Jun;103(6):5170-5182
pubmed: 32253036
Genet Sel Evol. 2010 Jan 27;42:2
pubmed: 20105297
J Dairy Sci. 2004 Jun;87(6):1896-907
pubmed: 15453507