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
. 2017 Dec 5;49(1):89.
doi: 10.1186/s12711-017-0364-8.

Modeling heterogeneous (co)variances from adjacent-SNP groups improves genomic prediction for milk protein composition traits

Affiliations

Modeling heterogeneous (co)variances from adjacent-SNP groups improves genomic prediction for milk protein composition traits

Grum Gebreyesus et al. Genet Sel Evol. .

Abstract

Background: Accurate genomic prediction requires a large reference population, which is problematic for traits that are expensive to measure. Traits related to milk protein composition are not routinely recorded due to costly procedures and are considered to be controlled by a few quantitative trait loci of large effect. The amount of variation explained may vary between regions leading to heterogeneous (co)variance patterns across the genome. Genomic prediction models that can efficiently take such heterogeneity of (co)variances into account can result in improved prediction reliability. In this study, we developed and implemented novel univariate and bivariate Bayesian prediction models, based on estimates of heterogeneous (co)variances for genome segments (BayesAS). Available data consisted of milk protein composition traits measured on cows and de-regressed proofs of total protein yield derived for bulls. Single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs), from 50K SNP arrays, were grouped into non-overlapping genome segments. A segment was defined as one SNP, or a group of 50, 100, or 200 adjacent SNPs, or one chromosome, or the whole genome. Traditional univariate and bivariate genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) models were also run for comparison. Reliabilities were calculated through a resampling strategy and using deterministic formula.

Results: BayesAS models improved prediction reliability for most of the traits compared to GBLUP models and this gain depended on segment size and genetic architecture of the traits. The gain in prediction reliability was especially marked for the protein composition traits β-CN, κ-CN and β-LG, for which prediction reliabilities were improved by 49 percentage points on average using the MT-BayesAS model with a 100-SNP segment size compared to the bivariate GBLUP. Prediction reliabilities were highest with the BayesAS model that uses a 100-SNP segment size. The bivariate versions of our BayesAS models resulted in extra gains of up to 6% in prediction reliability compared to the univariate versions.

Conclusions: Substantial improvement in prediction reliability was possible for most of the traits related to milk protein composition using our novel BayesAS models. Grouping adjacent SNPs into segments provided enhanced information to estimate parameters and allowing the segments to have different (co)variances helped disentangle heterogeneous (co)variances across the genome.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Proportion of genomic variance explained by each chromosome. Proportion of the genomic variance in the milk protein composition traits explained by each chromosome from the ST-BayesAS model taking chromosomes as segments
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Covariance between each protein composition trait with total protein yield explained by 100-SNP genomic segments
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Prediction reliability across MT-BayesAS models. Reliability of models according to segment sizes of 1, 50, 100, and 200 SNPs, chromosome, and whole genome. G-κ-CN = glycosylated-κ-CN; α S1-CN-8P = α S1-CN with eight phosphorylated serine groups
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Reliability of prediction using various proportions of genomic segments. Predictions were based on post-Gibbs analyses of samples from the MT-100-BayesA model. Segments were ranked based on explained covariance separately for each training set

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bobe G, Beitz DC, Freeman AE, Lindberg GL. Effect of milk protein genotypes on milk protein composition and its genetic parameter estimates. J Dairy Sci. 1999;82:2797–2804. doi: 10.3168/jds.S0022-0302(99)75537-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schopen GC, Heck JM, Bovenhuis H, Visker MH, van Valenberg HJ, van Arendonk JA. Genetic parameters for major milk proteins in Dutch Holstein-Friesians. J Dairy Sci. 2009;92:1182–1191. doi: 10.3168/jds.2008-1281. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gebreyesus G, Lund MS, Janss L, Poulsen NA, Larsen LB, Bovenhuis H, et al. Short communication: multi-trait estimation of genetic parameters for milk protein composition in the Danish Holstein. J Dairy Sci. 2016;99:2863–2866. doi: 10.3168/jds.2015-10501. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Daetwyler HD, Villanueva B, Woolliams JA. Accuracy of predicting the genetic risk of disease using a genome-wide approach. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3395. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003395. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Goddard M. Genomic selection: prediction of accuracy and maximisation of long term response. Genetica. 2009;136:245–257. doi: 10.1007/s10709-008-9308-0. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources