2012
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-13-42
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Efficiency of genomic selection using Bayesian multi-marker models for traits selected to reflect a wide range of heritabilities and frequencies of detected quantitative traits loci in mice

Abstract: BackgroundGenomic selection uses dense single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) markers to predict breeding values, as compared to conventional evaluations which estimate polygenic effects based on phenotypic records and pedigree information. The objective of this study was to compare polygenic, genomic and combined polygenic-genomic models, including mixture models (labelled according to the percentage of genotyped SNP markers considered to have a substantial effect, ranging from 2.5% to 100%). The data consiste… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Genomic information alone (SNP model) explained less variance, i.e., 36%, 28%, and 24% for BW, FI, and FE respectively. It is a common finding that SNPs explain less variance than the classical heritability estimates [27,28], which is attributed to causal variants having lower minor allele frequency than the genotyped SNPs [15], insufficient modeling of Identity By Descent by SNPs [16], and incomplete linkage disequilibrium (LD) between causal variants and genotyped SNPs [15]. Combining pedigree and SNP data (PED + SNP model) increased the explained variance above that of using pedigree only, i.e., for BW the PED + SNP model obtained an explained variance of 59%, compared to 42% for the PED model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Genomic information alone (SNP model) explained less variance, i.e., 36%, 28%, and 24% for BW, FI, and FE respectively. It is a common finding that SNPs explain less variance than the classical heritability estimates [27,28], which is attributed to causal variants having lower minor allele frequency than the genotyped SNPs [15], insufficient modeling of Identity By Descent by SNPs [16], and incomplete linkage disequilibrium (LD) between causal variants and genotyped SNPs [15]. Combining pedigree and SNP data (PED + SNP model) increased the explained variance above that of using pedigree only, i.e., for BW the PED + SNP model obtained an explained variance of 59%, compared to 42% for the PED model.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Overall, the low and moderate heritability estimates of increment traits indicate that it is a big challenge to achieve our expected goals by traditional breeding methods. Some approaches such as marker-assisted selection may be a good alternative for selection of these traits, especially early increment traits (Kapell et al, 2012).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV) were estimated using a Bayesian SNP best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) model as implemented in the Bayz software [35], using only the 50 K data or the 50 K data and a second marker component with QTL marker components. In the models using only the 50 K data, all SNP effects were assumed to come from a single normal distribution.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These variances were estimated using the Gbayz programme that is part of the Bayz software [35]. For each MCMC iteration, and were estimated, where is a design matrix and and are vectors of the regression coefficients of 50 K and QTL marker effects, respectively.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%