Dataset Information

Multi-population Genomic Relationships for Estimating Current Genetic Variances Within and Genetic Correlations Between Populations.

ABSTRACT: Different methods are available to calculate multi-population genomic relationship matrices. Since those matrices differ in base population, it is anticipated that the method used to calculate genomic relationships affects the estimate of genetic variances, covariances, and correlations. The aim of this article is to define the multi-population genomic relationship matrix to estimate current genetic variances within and genetic correlations between populations. The genomic relationship matrix containing two populations consists of four blocks, one block for population 1, one block for population 2, and two blocks for relationships between the populations. It is known, based on literature, that by using current allele frequencies to calculate genomic relationships within a population, current genetic variances are estimated. In this article, we theoretically derived the properties of the genomic relationship matrix to estimate genetic correlations between populations and validated it using simulations. When the scaling factor of across-population genomic relationships is equal to the product of the square roots of the scaling factors for within-population genomic relationships, the genetic correlation is estimated unbiasedly even though estimated genetic variances do not necessarily refer to the current population. When this property is not met, the correlation based on estimated variances should be multiplied by a correction factor based on the scaling factors. In this study, we present a genomic relationship matrix which directly estimates current genetic variances as well as genetic correlations between populations.

SUBMITTER: Wientjes YCJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5629319 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Multi-population Genomic Relationships for Estimating Current Genetic Variances Within and Genetic Correlations Between Populations.

Wientjes Yvonne C J YCJ Bijma Piter P Vandenplas Jérémie J Calus Mario P L MPL

Genetics 20170816 2

Different methods are available to calculate multi-population genomic relationship matrices. Since those matrices differ in base population, it is anticipated that the method used to calculate genomic relationships affects the estimate of genetic variances, covariances, and correlations. The aim of this article is to define the multi-population genomic relationship matrix to estimate current genetic variances within and genetic correlations between populations. The genomic relationship matrix co ...[more]

PMID: 28821589

Similar Datasets

Project description:The estimation of quantitative genetic parameters in wild populations is generally limited by the accuracy and completeness of the available pedigree information. Using relatedness at genomewide markers can potentially remove this limitation and lead to less biased and more precise estimates. We estimated heritability, maternal genetic effects and genetic correlations for body size traits in an unmanaged long-term study population of Soay sheep on St Kilda using three increasingly complete and accurate estimates of relatedness: (i) Pedigree 1, using observation-derived maternal links and microsatellite-derived paternal links; (ii) Pedigree 2, using SNP-derived assignment of both maternity and paternity; and (iii) whole-genome relatedness at 37 037 autosomal SNPs. In initial analyses, heritability estimates were strikingly similar for all three methods, while standard errors were systematically lower in analyses based on Pedigree 2 and genomic relatedness. Genetic correlations were generally strong, differed little between the three estimates of relatedness and the standard errors declined only very slightly with improved relatedness information. When partitioning maternal effects into separate genetic and environmental components, maternal genetic effects found in juvenile traits increased substantially across the three relatedness estimates. Heritability declined compared to parallel models where only a maternal environment effect was fitted, suggesting that maternal genetic effects are confounded with direct genetic effects and that more accurate estimates of relatedness were better able to separate maternal genetic effects from direct genetic effects. We found that the heritability captured by SNP markers asymptoted at about half the SNPs available, suggesting that denser marker panels are not necessarily required for precise and unbiased heritability estimates. Finally, we present guidelines for the use of genomic relatedness in future quantitative genetics studies in natural populations.

Project description:BackgroundThe influence of linkage disequilibrium (LD), epistasis, and inbreeding on genotypic variance continues to be an important area of investigation in genetics and evolution. Although the current knowledge about biological pathways and gene networks indicates that epistasis is important in determining quantitative traits, the empirical evidence for a range of species and traits is that the genotypic variance is most additive. This has been confirmed by some recent theoretical studies. However, because these investigations assumed linkage equilibrium, considered only additive effects, or used simplified assumptions for two- and higher-order epistatic effects, the objective of this investigation was to provide additional information about the impact of LD and epistasis on genetic variances in noninbred and inbred populations, using a simulated dataset.ResultsIn general, the most important component of the genotypic variance was additive variance. Because of positive LD values, after 10 generations of random crosses there was generally a decrease in all genetic variances and covariances, especially the nonepistatic variances. Thus, the epistatic variance/genotypic variance ratio is inversely proportional to the LD level. Increasing inbreeding increased the magnitude of the additive, additive x additive, additive x dominance, and dominance x additive variances, and decreased the dominance and dominance x dominance variances. Except for duplicate epistasis with 100% interacting genes, the epistatic variance/genotypic variance ratio was proportional to the inbreeding level. In general, the additive x additive variance was the most important component of the epistatic variance. Concerning the genetic covariances, in general, they showed lower magnitudes relative to the genetic variances and positive and negative signs. The epistatic variance/genotypic variance ratio was maximized under duplicate and dominant epistasis and minimized assuming recessive and complementary epistasis. Increasing the percentage of epistatic genes from 30 to 100% increased the epistatic variance/genotypic variance ratio by a rate of 1.3 to 12.6, especially in inbred populations. The epistatic variance/genotypic variance ratio was maximized in the noninbred and inbred populations with intermediate LD and an average allelic frequency of the dominant genes of 0.3 and in the noninbred and inbred populations with low LD and an average allelic frequency of 0.5.ConclusionsAdditive variance is in general the most important component of genotypic variance. LD and inbreeding have a significant effect on the magnitude of the genetic variances and covariances. In general, the additive x additive variance is the most important component of epistatic variance. The maximization of the epistatic variance/genotypic variance ratio depends on the LD level, degree of inbreeding, epistasis type, percentage of interacting genes, and average allelic frequency.

Project description:BackgroundIn pig and poultry breeding programs, the breeding goal is to improve crossbred (CB) performance, whereas selection in the purebred (PB) lines is often based on PB performance. Thus, response to selection may be suboptimal, because the genetic correlation between PB and CB performance ([Formula: see text]) is generally lower than 1. Accurate estimates of the [Formula: see text] are needed, so that breeders can decide if they should collect data from CB animals. [Formula: see text] can be estimated either from pedigree or genomic relationships, which may produce different results. With genomic relationships, the [Formula: see text] estimate could be improved when relationships between purebred and crossbred animals are based only on the alleles that originate from the PB line of interest. This work presents the first comparison of estimated [Formula: see text] and variance components of body weight in broilers, using pedigree-based or genotype-based models, where the breed-of-origin of alleles was either ignored or considered. We used genotypes and body weight measurements of PB and CB animals that have a common sire line.ResultsOur results showed that the [Formula: see text] estimates depended on the relationship matrix used. Estimates were 5 to 25% larger with genotype-based models than with pedigree-based models. Moreover, [Formula: see text] estimates were similar (max. 7% difference) regardless of whether the model considered breed-of-origin of alleles or not. Standard errors of [Formula: see text] estimates were smaller with genotype-based than with pedigree-based methods, and smaller with models that ignored breed-of-origin than with models that considered breed-of-origin.ConclusionsWe conclude that genotype-based models can be useful for estimating [Formula: see text], even when the PB and CB animals that have phenotypes are closely related. Considering breed-of-origin of alleles did not yield different estimates of [Formula: see text], probably because the parental breeds of the CB animals were distantly related.

Project description:A major application of genomic prediction (GP) in plant breeding is the identification of superior inbred lines within families derived from biparental crosses. When models for various traits were trained within related or unrelated biparental families (BPFs), experimental studies found substantial variation in prediction accuracy (PA), but little is known about the underlying factors. We used SNP marker genotypes of inbred lines from either elite germplasm or landraces of maize (Zeamays L.) as parents to generate in silico 300 BPFs of doubled-haploid lines. We analyzed PA within each BPF for 50 simulated polygenic traits, using genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) models trained with individuals from either full-sib (FSF), half-sib (HSF), or unrelated families (URF) for various sizes ([Formula: see text]) of the training set and different heritabilities ([Formula: see text] In addition, we modified two deterministic equations for forecasting PA to account for inbreeding and genetic variance unexplained by the training set. Averaged across traits, PA was high within FSF (0.41-0.97) with large variation only for [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] [Formula: see text] For HSF and URF, PA was on average ∼40-60% lower and varied substantially among different combinations of BPFs used for model training and prediction as well as different traits. As exemplified by HSF results, PA of across-family GP can be very low if causal variants not segregating in the training set account for a sizeable proportion of the genetic variance among predicted individuals. Deterministic equations accurately forecast the PA expected over many traits, yet cannot capture trait-specific deviations. We conclude that model training within BPFs generally yields stable PA, whereas a high level of uncertainty is encountered in across-family GP. Our study shows the extent of variation in PA that must be at least reckoned with in practice and offers a starting point for the design of training sets composed of multiple BPFs.

Dataset Information

Multi-population Genomic Relationships for Estimating Current Genetic Variances Within and Genetic Correlations Between Populations.

Publications

Multi-population Genomic Relationships for Estimating Current Genetic Variances Within and Genetic Correlations Between Populations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets