4.5 Article

Effect of selection and selective genotyping for creation of reference on bias and accuracy of genomic prediction

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS
卷 136, 期 5, 页码 390-407

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12420

关键词

genomic selection; GWAS; prediction bias; selective genotyping; single-step GBLUP

资金

  1. Endeavour Research Fellowship (Govt. of Australia)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Reference populations for genomic selection usually involve selected individuals, which may result in biased prediction of estimated genomic breeding values (GEBV). In a simulation study, bias and accuracy of GEBV were explored for various genetic models with individuals selectively genotyped in a typical nucleus breeding program. We compared the performance of three existing methods, that is, Best Linear Unbiased Prediction of breeding values using pedigree-based relationships (PBLUP), genomic relationships for genotyped animals only (GBLUP) and a Single-Step approach (SSGBLUP) using both. For a scenario with no-selection and random mating (RR), prediction was unbiased. However, lower accuracy and bias were observed for scenarios with selection and random mating (SR) or selection and positive assortative mating (SA). As expected, bias disappeared when all individuals were genotyped and used in GBLUP. SSGBLUP showed higher accuracy compared to GBLUP, and bias of prediction was negligible with SR. However, PBLUP and SSGBLUP still showed bias in SA due to high inbreeding. SSGBLUP and PBLUP were unbiased provided that inbreeding was accounted for in the relationship matrices. Selective genotyping based on extreme phenotypic contrasts increased the prediction accuracy, but prediction was biased when using GBLUP. SSGBLUP could correct the biasedness while gaining higher accuracy than GBLUP. In a typical animal breeding program, where it is too expensive to genotype all animals, it would be appropriate to genotype phenotypically contrasting selection candidates and use a Single-Step approach to obtain accurate and unbiased prediction of GEBV.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据