4.6 Review

Single-Step Genomic Evaluations from Theory to Practice: Using SNP Chips and Sequence Data in BLUPF90

期刊

GENES
卷 11, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes11070790

关键词

genomic selection; genomic prediction; genome-wide association; single-step genomic BLUP

资金

  1. American Angus Association
  2. Holstein Association USA (Brattleboro, VT)
  3. Zoetis
  4. Cobb-Vantress
  5. Pig Improvement Company
  6. Smithfield Premium Genetics
  7. US Department of Agriculture's National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Agriculture Computations in genomic selection and Food Research Initiative competitive grant) [2015-67015-22936]
  8. European Unions' Horizon 2020 Research & Innovation programme [772787 - SMARTER]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single-step genomic evaluation became a standard procedure in livestock breeding, and the main reason is the ability to combine all pedigree, phenotypes, and genotypes available into one single evaluation, without the need of post-analysis processing. Therefore, the incorporation of data on genotyped and non-genotyped animals in this method is straightforward. Since 2009, two main implementations of single-step were proposed. One is called single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction (ssGBLUP) and uses single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) to construct the genomic relationship matrix; the other is the single-step Bayesian regression (ssBR), which is a marker effect model. Under the same assumptions, both models are equivalent. In this review, we focus solely on ssGBLUP. The implementation of ssGBLUP into the BLUPF90 software suite was done in 2009, and since then, several changes were made to make ssGBLUP flexible to any model, number of traits, number of phenotypes, and number of genotyped animals. Single-step GBLUP from the BLUPF90 software suite has been used for genomic evaluations worldwide. In this review, we will show theoretical developments and numerical examples of ssGBLUP using SNP data from regular chips to sequence data.

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

4.6
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