4.5 Article

A comparison of methods to estimate genomic relationships using pedigree and markers in livestock populations

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANIMAL BREEDING AND GENETICS
卷 133, 期 6, 页码 452-462

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/jbg.12217

关键词

Accuracy; genomic prediction; genome sharing; identity by descent; SNP

资金

  1. Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Competitive Grant from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture [2010-65205-20342]
  2. National Pork Board [11-042]
  3. US Pig Genome Coordination Program
  4. CONICET [PIP 2013-00833]
  5. ANPCyT from Argentina [PICT 2013-1661]
  6. Saint-Exupery Scholarship Program (MinCyT Argentina-French Embassy)
  7. NIFA [2010-65205-20342, 581200] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Accurate prediction of breeding values depends on capturing the variability in genome sharing of relatives with the same pedigree relationship. Here, we compare two approaches to set up genomic relationship matrices for precision of genomic relationships (GR) and accuracy of estimated breeding values (GEBV). Real and simulated data (pigs, 60k SNP) were analysed, and GR were estimated using two approaches: (i) identity by state, corrected with either the observed (G(VR-O)) or the base population (G(VR-B)) allele frequencies and (ii) identity by descent using linkage analysis (G(IBD-L)). Estimators were evaluated for precision and empirical bias with respect to true pedigree IBD GR. All three estimators had very low bias. G(IBD-L) displayed the lowest sampling error and the highest correlation with true genome-shared values. G(VR-B) approximated G(IBD-L)'s correlation and had lower error than G(VR-O). Accuracy of GEBV for selection candidates was significantly higher when G(IBD-L) was used and identical between G(VR-O) and G(VR-B). In real data, G(IBD-L)'s sampling standard deviation was the closest to the theoretical value for each pedigree relationship. Use of pedigree to calculate GR improved the precision of estimates and the accuracy of GEBV.

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

4.5
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