Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012 May 21;6 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S12.
doi: 10.1186/1753-6561-6-S2-S12. Epub 2012 May 21.

A two step Bayesian approach for genomic prediction of breeding values

Affiliations

A two step Bayesian approach for genomic prediction of breeding values

Mohammad M Shariati et al. BMC Proc. .

Abstract

Background: In genomic models that assign an individual variance to each marker, the contribution of one marker to the posterior distribution of the marker variance is only one degree of freedom (df), which introduces many variance parameters with only little information per variance parameter. A better alternative could be to form clusters of markers with similar effects where markers in a cluster have a common variance. Therefore, the influence of each marker group of size p on the posterior distribution of the marker variances will be p df.

Methods: The simulated data from the 15th QTL-MAS workshop were analyzed such that SNP markers were ranked based on their effects and markers with similar estimated effects were grouped together. In step 1, all markers with minor allele frequency more than 0.01 were included in a SNP-BLUP prediction model. In step 2, markers were ranked based on their estimated variance on the trait in step 1 and each 150 markers were assigned to one group with a common variance. In further analyses, subsets of 1500 and 450 markers with largest effects in step 2 were kept in the prediction model.

Results: Grouping markers outperformed SNP-BLUP model in terms of accuracy of predicted breeding values. However, the accuracies of predicted breeding values were lower than Bayesian methods with marker specific variances.

Conclusions: Grouping markers is less flexible than allowing each marker to have a specific marker variance but, by grouping, the power to estimate marker variances increases. A prior knowledge of the genetic architecture of the trait is necessary for clustering markers and appropriate prior parameterization.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Marker-group heritabilities for different prior degrees of freedom for the group variances. Grouping was such that the first group was consisted of markers with largest effects in the SNP-BLUP analysis and similarly the last group was consisted of markers with the smallest effects on the trait.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Meuwissen T, Hayes B, Goddard M. Prediction of total genetic value using genome-wide dense marker maps. Genetics. 2001;157:1819–1829. - PMC - PubMed
    1. VanRaden PM. Efficient methods to compute genomic predictions. J Dairy Sci. 2008;91:4414–4423. doi: 10.3168/jds.2007-0980. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Strandén I, Garrick DJ. Technical note: Derivation of equivalent computing algorithms for genomic predictions and reliabilities of animal merit. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92:2971–2975. doi: 10.3168/jds.2008-1929. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Usai MG, Goddard ME, Hayes BJ. LASSO with cross-validation for genomic selection. Genet Res. 2009;91:427–436. doi: 10.1017/S0016672309990334. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mutshinda CM, Sillanpaa MJ. Extended Bayesian LASSO for multiple quantitative trait loci mapping and unobserved phenotype prediction. Genetics. 2010;186:1067–1075. doi: 10.1534/genetics.110.119586. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources