2020
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-76759-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

GMStool: GWAS-based marker selection tool for genomic prediction from genomic data

Abstract: The increased accessibility to genomic data in recent years has laid the foundation for studies to predict various phenotypes of organisms based on the genome. Genomic prediction collectively refers to these studies, and it estimates an individual’s phenotypes mainly using single nucleotide polymorphism markers. Typically, the accuracy of these genomic prediction studies is highly dependent on the markers used; however, in practice, choosing optimal markers with high accuracy for the phenotype to be used is a … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
29
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
(42 reference statements)
0
29
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, the utilization of highly significant SNPs from ssGWAS can give comparative prediction accuracies for the two traits studied, for both un-imputed and imputed genotype data, as compared to the full set of 6470 SNPs in our present study. However, previous reports showed that using significant SNP panels selected from ssGWAS had higher accuracy in the estimated breeding values for disease resistance traits in Litopeneaus vannamei ( Luo et al 2021 ) or fish species ( Jeong et al 2020 ). On the one hand, these SNPs can be used to develop a small SNP panel to genotype a large number of animals in both the training and validation populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Finally, the utilization of highly significant SNPs from ssGWAS can give comparative prediction accuracies for the two traits studied, for both un-imputed and imputed genotype data, as compared to the full set of 6470 SNPs in our present study. However, previous reports showed that using significant SNP panels selected from ssGWAS had higher accuracy in the estimated breeding values for disease resistance traits in Litopeneaus vannamei ( Luo et al 2021 ) or fish species ( Jeong et al 2020 ). On the one hand, these SNPs can be used to develop a small SNP panel to genotype a large number of animals in both the training and validation populations.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…For the model GBLUP_GMS (GWAS Marker Selection GBLUP), genomic additive matrix (G) was obtained using only the significant SNPs from the GWAS analysis for each treatment (B+ and B-), except for Delta that we used all significant SNPs. A similar approach for marker selection based on GWAS for genomic prediction is described by Jeong et al (2020). The covered of the significant SNPs from GWAS analysis of each treatment (B+, B-, and Delta) were obtained using a windows range upstream and downstream, based on LD decay of respective chromosomes.…”
Section: Genomic Predictionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The major limitation of incorporating TAMs into GS models depended on the accuracy of GWAS results. Marker selection strategies based on p values or marker effects might produce an improper marker set with low accuracies if the GWAS was incorrect (Jeong et al, 2020). GWAS results from the full data set that included the training set and testing sets might produce an overfitted markers set.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides, the marker information and training population will be used to obtain an optimum breeding design and improve genetic gains through reducing costs. Recently, GMStool is developed to present the best prediction model with the optimal marker set based on GWAS results (Jeong et al, 2020), which provides a useful tool for breeders. As GBS, SNP array technology, and other high-output genotyping strategies arise, the genotyping costs are likely to continue to decrease, whereas the phenotyping costs are usually steady or increasing (Spindel et al, 2015).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%